Ed_D17 Reviews

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014)

A fitting adieu to Middle Earth, but one that lacks that special something

[8/10 · 17 December 2014]

I should have loved this film. One of the aspects I love most about Return of the King, my favourite of Jackson's adaptations and one of my favourite films of all time, is the sprawling, mass fantasy battle scenes and The Battle of Five Armies is pretty much one elongated battle scene. However, there's something that's not quite right.

It's not the lack of emotion, characterization or plot. Indeed, there are plenty of those, there is just something I just can't put my finger on that stops the film from being truly epic. Perhaps it is because, for me at least, this film will always live in King's shadow but, really, where I think the film falls down, is that the battles simply aren't done well enough. The context is not explained very well, the actual engagements not that exciting too much repetition and, most crucially, too much cutting away from one place to another. This cutting worked fine, well, even, in Two Towers between the crucible of Helm's Deep and the quiet conversation of the Entmoot, but, here, there are just too many places that the actions flits between. I appreciate this is a battle of five armies, and that there are plenty of characters, but, sadly, the action did seem to be all over the place. And the repetition I mentioned earlier: a huge portion of the film seemed to be entirely composed of either someone running to warn others, a main character leading the charge into battle, and several one-on-one battles. The latter may be entertaining, sure, but there is a line which is stepped over in this film.

The ending, too, seemed like it was rushed by the filmmakers, especially when we consider that we don't actually find out what happens to the Arkenstone in the end. Many people criticised Return of the King's dragged out ending, but that was full of emotion and was a fitting, yet sad, farewell. Here, where not only does Bilbo say farewell to Gandalf and the Dwarfs, but where we say an almost certain farewell to Middle Earth, the end is far too brief and unlikely to instil emotion. Though, it is, to be fair, nicely linked into Fellowship.

Ultimately though, the film has plenty of positives. Despite being full of battle sequences, Jackson fits in plenty of emotional scenes and develops many of the characters fantastically. In particular, Armitage's Thorin is different and darker, yet changes a great deal throughout the film - all in all, a fantastic performance. There's plenty of typical Jackson humour, some brilliant cameos and some great nods to the Lord of the Rings films and some elements of the film's production, which die-hard fans will no doubt pick up on with a smile. It's also important to realise that, whilst it's easy to criticise the long battle sequences, they are entertaining, and keep the pace of the film up throughout.

So, whilst it is easy to concentrate on the negatives and, in particular, the lack of a Grey Havens-esque adieu to Middle Earth, The Battle of Five Armies is still a great film and a fitting end to what has been a true achievement: a series of beautiful film adaptations that many will be sad to see end.

• Ed

The Lone Ranger (2013)

An great, entertaining film, unfairly ganged up upon.

[8/10 · 6 January 2014]

"The first forty-five minutes are excellent…the next forty-five minutes are a little soporific... Then comes the train scene—incredible! When I saw it, I kept thinking, 'What, that's the film that everybody says is crap? Seriously?"

That's not me who said that, that was Quentin Tarantino, and I think he's spot on. Critic after critic lined up to slate this film, but what element of it? The quality of the film? I doubt it, because this film is not deserving of many of the negative reviews it's received. Its budget? The fact it was delayed? Perhaps that's what they're reviewing. Whatever the case, it was the critics who discouraged me from paying to see this film when it was released, despite the fact I thought it looked good, and it was only a cheap deal at a local retailer that made me pick it up. But I'm sure glad I did. Another member of the team who worked on "The Lone Ranger", though I can't remember whom exactly, has said that this film will be one people will look back on favourably in ten years and, again, I think he's spot on. Because "The Lone Ranger" is brilliant.

There's undeniably a large focus on action and it can get a little silly at times but the film has plenty of other substance to it. The plot is fantastic, not at all linear, and full of twists and turns with moments that can shock or change your perspective of a character altogether. It's a beautifully put-together film.

The character development and acting on the whole is also superb. The development of John Reid's (Armie Hammer) character is pleasing to watch unfold and the way in which we learn more of the true nature and motives of many of the characters, most notably Tonto (Johnny Depp) and Latham Cole (Tom Wilkinson) is fantastic. Armie Hammer is a fantastic John Reid, both charismatic and funny, without being too heroic. Whilst Johnny Depp's Tonto is undeniably similar to his role as Jack Sparrow in "Pirates of the Caribbean", that's Johnny Depp's problem, not ours. In fact, it's great to see such a wonderful persona make a reappearance, especially as we see more of Tonto's motives coming through. Finally, Butch Cavendish (William Fichtner) is an absolutely brilliant villain, superbly acted.

The visuals of the film are also spectacular, offering some stunning vistas of the good ol' Wild West, which really help define the setting for the film, and some great special effects which don't fall into the trap of becoming to frequent, so only add to the already fantastic plot. "The Lone Ranger" is, of course, not without its flaws, but they are not so many as several critics would have you believe. The method in which the story is told is unnecessary (though admittedly is useful in one instance) and slows down what would otherwise be a good-paced film. Finally, though the comedy is usually brilliant, it does get a little silly at times.

In summary, "The Lone Ranger" is simply fun. It's not at all what the critics would have you believe, rather an entertaining ride with a fantastically complex plot and plenty of twists and turns, augmented by some great characters, acting and effects. This is a film to be watched and re-watched.

Man of Steel (2013)

Entertaining, but bland and generic.

[5/10 · 6 January 2014]

If you're looking for a generic superhero movie, then you've come to the right place. "Man of Steel" offers everything your standard superhero movie should have. An attractive lead star clad in a suitably cinematic outfit (he's even got a cape!) with some mind-blowing powers, facing down enemies with similarly nasty powers and some very big spaceships. And don't worry, there's plenty of explosions, rubble and torn up roads added into the mix.

Sadly, that's about all this film offers, which relegates "Man of Steel" to, well, a generic superhero movie. I am not, of course, downplaying the superhero movie genre for it can indeed produce some truly brilliant films. But where "The Dark Knight" trilogy was dark, gritty and realistic and where "The Avengers" was ambitious in its concept and simply hilarious, and where "Iron Man 3" saw great character development of Tony Stark, "Man of Steel" offers… nothing. The story starts of promising enough, touching upon what is a gripping and entertaining theme - with some spectacular visuals to boot – it goes downhill from there, descending into what is the very bare bones of any superhero move. Even the 'discovering himself' part of the film is too bland and too… usual.

While you can't fault the effects, there's very little other substance in the film, very little character development, very little emotion and even the 'problem' of the film is not really very problematic. There's no moment, unlike in, say, "The Dark Knight Rises" where we think 'hell, how on Earth is he going to get out of this one?' The latter point is particularly disappointing as director Zach Snyder had some great material to work with – the universally recognizable kryptonite – which could have really made us bite our nails in suspense at Superman's predicament.

But there's almost nothing like any of that in the film. The vast, vast majority of the film you are simply sitting, unmoving and unemotional, watching explosion after destroyed building after explosion. You're never sitting on the edge of your seat, you're never shocked and you're probably never moved to even contemplate crying. The rare emotional moments come in a series of flashbacks of Clark's past life, which makes me think that this film would have been far better off as an origin movie, chartering how Superman came to discover his powers and adapt in this alien world in which he finds himself growing up.

To sum up, this is a solidly entertaining film, with some fantastic effects and decent acting and a passable plot. Don't get me wrong, effects and action are great, but a film needs something more but this one does have any more. It lacks substance and has very little meat on the bones, as it were. Instead, "Man of Steel" tries to make up for this by adding in yet more explosions and other effects. Does it make up for it? No, it doesn't.

• Ed

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

Exciting, Fast-Paced, Hilarious and Genius. Oh, and a dragon.

[9/10 · 18 December 2013]

It's now apparent that, back in "An Unexpected Journey", when Bilbo proclaimed that he was "going on an adventure", he was referring to the second instalment in Peter Jackson's Hobbit trilogy, "The Desolation of Smaug" because that's what the film is. An adventure. A genius, fast- paced, hilarious and breath-taking adventure.

"Haters gonna hate", as they say, which is what a lot of people were indeed doing upon the realisation that "Desolation" would be straying further from the source text. But those haters simply have to accept that Tolkien's "The Hobbit" is not blockbuster material, not by a long shot. If another trilogy, or even a single other film, was to be made based upon Middle Earth, it had to include lots of other material, both Tolkien and 'Jackson'. A film could hardly be made on the Appendices, after all, so this was a chance to cram as much Tolkien (and other) goodness into the trilogy. If you want the next instalment in Tolkien's quaint bedtime story, then don't bother. If, however, you're looking for a thrilling, fantasy adventure movie that uses Tolkien's wonderful world and creatures then you're certainly in for a treat.

The pace is much improved on "An Unexpected Journey", with the audience being thrown almost immediately into the action. Said action is frequent and the gaps in between are filled with enough stunning vistas and excellently scripted dialogue to keep the film ticking over at a good pace. The fighting scenes are brilliantly choreographed, with fantastic displays of elven dexterity and brutality that will amaze you, then, when you think you've seen the peak, amaze you again. It's tons of fun, exciting and hilarious in parts. The two most anticipated scenes of the film, the barrel sequence and Smaug himself, are not in the slightest disappointing, with the former being one of the funniest, exciting and unique scenes you'll have seen for a long time and the second boasting some spectacular effects and cinematography. Smaug is, quite simply, absolutely brilliant to behold and the events that take place within Erebor itself are the thrilling highlight to an already thrilling film.

The acting, once again, is more than up to scratch. Marin Freeman is once again brilliant as the quirky but brave Bilbo Baggins and the new additions to the cast putting in excellent performances, with special mentions to Orlando Bloom as Legolas, who embodies everything we loved about Legolas in the original "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy; Luke Evans as Bard who, despite some concerns about his age, appearance and 'Bloom- ness' makes us fall in love with his character very quickly and, finally, Benedict Cumberbatch as Smaug. Smaug not only impresses visually but exudes character and personality, something very few monsters in films have, which makes him all the more entertaining. Once again, all the other people who played a part in making this film, as with the other 'Middle Earth' films have done a brilliant job. The authenticity and effect of several scenes and locations is greatly aided by the design and the props, whilst Howard Shore has once again provided a brilliant soundtrack and Ed Sheeran's "I See Fire", which plays first during the credits, adds another level of emotion to your already overloaded brain as you walk out of the cinema.

"The Desolation of Smaug" only really falls down on a few points, most of which can be attributed to 'middle-film syndrome'. Many elements of the story feel like they are incomplete and not dealt with enough, that they are lacking in a certain something, be it detail, depth or resolution. To give examples would be to give spoilers, but there are some obvious instances. Finally, the love triangle, included by order of the studio in pick-up shooting (so not a fault of Jackson's, it is worth pointing out), really does not add anything to the film. It's unnecessary, awkward and, if anything, just gives the devout Tolkien fans more ammunition. Here's hoping it too is a victim of 'middle-film syndrome' and will become more valuable in the third instalment.

And, before I wrap up, it's worth mentioning the possibility of seeing this film in 3D, and the fact that you should most definitely do so. Too often do films use 3D to increase their box office takings but it's nice to see a film, such as this one, which uses 3D to augment its already impressive visual effects and action scenes. The vistas look that much more impressive and the variety of objects that fly off the screen towards you - from arrows to rubble to severed orc heads - is just fantastic.

In conclusion, while "The Desolation of Smaug" has some noticeable faults, and lacks the sheer impact of the original "Lord of the Rings" Trilogy you must consider that one watches film as a means of entertainment and there are very few films that entertain as much as this one, with its fast-paced action, humour, charm and aesthetics. I'm not the first to use this pun (and won't be the last), but it is quite simply barrels of fun. Whilst it's not a masterpiece, and hence my brain is telling me to mark it down a star or two accordingly, I have to go with my heart and give this thrilling ride the full ten stars.

• Ed

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

The Hunger Games franchise just caught fire

[8/10 · 23 November 2013]

The Hunger Games franchise had a lot to prove this time around. Whilst the first film was hardly a flop, it wasn't quite up to scratch with the impact the trilogy of novels had on the world.

So, did it deliver? In short, absolutely.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the second instalment in the Hunger Games trilogy (turned to a quadrilogy for film) and sees our star- crossed lovers Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) enter the brutal Hunger Games Arena again, this time accompanied not by other teenage children, put previous victors, many of whom are experienced killers. But amongst all this, unrest is brewing in the dystopian nation of Panem and a revolution is starting to catch fire, all thanks to our heroine, Katniss Everdeen, who is largely unaware and slow to accept the influence she is having. The plot is undeniably strong. Whilst The Hunger Games provided us with a story about two teenage tributes fighting for their lives and their identities in an arena, this was merely the opening act, setting the scene and introducing us to the totalitarian and brutal society of Panem. Catching Fire is where the trilogy takes off, adding more twists and turns and starting to prepare the ground for the main event. What particularly pleased me is how Catching Fire manages to portray the imminent rebellion and the danger surrounding Kantiss and her loved ones as a result. The first instalment of the film quadrilogy, fatally, rushed the ending, failing to capture this. Catching Fire recovers from this mistake and, as a result, adds a whole new level of peril that runs throughout the film, up to the crucial twist employed by President Snow that sends Kantiss and Peeta back into the arena.

But the plot was never going to be the issue, the sales of the novel are a testimony to that. All director Francis Lawrence had to do was stick as close to the story as he could, whilst making it suitable for film. Fans of the books will be glad that he manages to do this (and everyone else should be equally glad), with only one or two exceptions which do, unfortunately, result in small plot holes which will leave those unfamiliar with the books having to come up with their own ways of filling the gaps, or at the very least somewhat bemused. The only real, large let-down I have is how the film fails to truly capture the nightmares that Katniss (and Peeta) experience after their horror of the Games. Although one part at the start of the film works fantastically, this aspect is hinted at a best and could have been done much better, at little cost or time. A wasted opportunity, I feel.

Fortunately, they're really the only negative points about this film though some of the acting still feels a little flat, particularly in the case of Gale (Liam Hemsworth) and Plutarch Heavensbee (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), the latter being particularly disappointing. Aside from the exceptions I mentioned, the acting throughout the film is generally superb. The casting of both Finnick Odair (Sam Clafin) and Johanna Mason (Jena Malone) is absolutely perfect and both actors play their roles brilliantly. Although Finnick comes across as too nice too quickly (readers of the novels will know that the discovery of Finnick's true character is one of the joys of the final two novels), Sam Clafin is flawless in every other regard and you can be sure that the teenage girl part of the audience will stifle a giggle in at least one instance, as it should be. Jena Malone also captures the extreme confidence and slight insanity of Johanna perfectly and adds great value to a large number of scenes. Even Beetee (Jeffery Wright), and certain minor characters – especially Thread (Patrick St. Espirit) - deserve an honourable mention.

Not to be outdone by the new additions to the cast, Jennifer Lawrence really steps up her game as Katniss. She gets across Katniss' overwhelming situation very well, portraying the difficulty of it for a teenage girl in her position, deals very well with several close-up shots and provides a great deal of humour in certain scenes with some fantastic facial expressions. Of course, no cast can make a film alone, so it's fortunate that the other aspects of Catching Fire are so well done. Gone is Gary Ross' (poor) choice of hand-held cameras (you can actually see what's going on in the Cornucopia bloodbath now) and in come some truly breath-taking scenery. The panoramic and aerial shots of the Capitol, the Arena and the forest outside District 12 are wonderful to behold and give the spectator a much better sense of the world in which this film takes place. The Arena itself looks fantastic and the locations and sets used are realistic and visually very appealing. The effects are stunning with most of the Arena threats being made truly terrifying and the rest of the effects adding a whole new level of realism and grandiose to the film. Finally, the soundtrack and sound effects fit in perfectly, with the music and sound fitting perfectly into every situation, building tension, heightening danger, or adding to emotion where appropriate.

To sum up, Catching Fire is a phenomenal achievement that both eclipses and builds upon the relative success of its predecessor. Whilst the film is not perfect (hence only 9 stars), so few are, and the failings of this film are generally very small and certainly overshadowed by its power and ability to thrill, excite and stun its audience. Catching Fire has really set the bar for the next instalments in the franchise, but there's no need to worry about that just now. All you need to do is shut down whatever you're reading this on, head to the nearest cinema, purchase a ticket for Catching Fire and be blown away.

• Ed