The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

So, the second hairy-footed, axe-wielding, wizard-filled instalment is upon us after a year in the waiting. And 12 months is a particularly long time to wait in the world of Middle Earth, with such an enormous amount of active plot lines to have to remember from 2012's 'The Unexpected Journey'. Left partway through their quest, (and with Bilbo having just pocketed Gollum's precious), Desolation picks up the party (after a minor sojourn to recap on unseen events from before the first film) still being pursued by the Orc gang as they travel closer to the Lonely Mountain. Despite the somewhat aborted attempt to refresh the audience's memories though, Peter Jackson does assume a fair amount of revision on the part of the viewer, with a little too much of the mythology swept over too quickly to truly get back up to speed before a new avalanche of story to stay on top of.

The Heist

If ever you wanted to see a movie that didn't know what it wanted to be, pop this one pretty high on the list. The Heist (or The Maiden Heist in the US) seems more than a little confused as to who its audience is - far too slow for the expectant Hollywood youth, yet the humour too weird (and the jokes too immature) for any kind of older target. Essentially billed as an older person's Hustle, Christopher Walken, Morgan Freeman and William H. Macy are three ageing gallery security guards who will stop at nothing to make sure that their beloved art doesn't leave the country. I think we can all agree that on paper, that combination of high quality cast and intriguing plot sounds like an excellent prospect, which is why the poor (and direct to video) result is so worrying and disappointing. Sadly, with the storyline (and inconsistent comedy) so drastically over-worked, and the concept so badly laboured, The Heist just becomes another one of Hollywood's immediately forgettable budget-airline in flight movie offerings, rather than the contemporary con movie it could so easily have been.

The Hunt For Red October

I'm not too proud to admit when I'm mistaken, and The Hunt For Red October is certainly one of those times; a film I had prematurely written off as a vintage (and by vintage, read 1990) novel-turned-blockbuster cash-in of Tom Clancy's Jack Ryan series. And while some of that sentiment is still no doubt the case, the resulting movie is even now still worthy of the plaudits gained at the time of its release, easily standing up to any number of its more modern Cold War cousins. Undoubtedly, part of the charm comes from the unexpectedly strong cast list (personal feelings about Alec Baldwin aside), with Sean Connery's familiarly soothing tones distracting from some otherwise questionable Russian accents. And despite some dubious blue screen work (thankfully kept to minimum) doing its best to interrupt proceedings, the movie as a whole skips along at a pace, with very little fat to trim from the edges. Perhaps it's because of the astonishing attention to detail (presumably coming from the original text), or perhaps it's just because of Sean Connery's most excellent pronunciation of the phrase "sonar nets", but either way, Hunt For Red October is certainly not one to be written off. Lesson learned.

"Thish blue shcreen ish worryingly poor. Shomeone'sh going to figure out we're not where we shay we are."

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

"In a hole in the ground there lived a Hobbit", so the story says. And so, almost exactly nine years to the day after begrudgingly leaving Middle Earth, Peter Jackson has finally decided it's time it was told. And told properly by the sound of it. 3D, double the industry standard frame rates, and circa 300 pages (in my edition at least) spread into three truly blockbuster films (An Unexpected Journey really living the definition of epic at just shy of 3 hours).

Lets deal with the latter point first; yes, three films. From 300 pages. To put that in context, the original publications of the Lord of the Rings trilogy carried a much more impressive 1571 pages. And three films were crafted from that. Now I'm not for a second going to suggest that everything from those fifteen-hundred pages was used in the original film series, but it does just contextualise the scale of the difference with this new trilogy. To be honest, I was happily on-board with the original two film premise. That seemed plenty sufficient enough to tell the story I remember from the book in typically lavish Jackson fashion. The extension to three that was announced in late July this year does therefore grate somewhat, even in spite of Jackson's assertion that the embellishments are taken directly from Tolkien's own notes on additions that he wanted to bring to his own story. Unfortunately, that initial instinct does hold some truth when watching the film, which does feel padded, and more annoyingly, almost self-indulgent in places when it seems to find requirement to go off topic in wild tangents. Indeed, the fact that after almost three hours of the luscious New Zealand visuals and seamless WETA effects we're only concluding the sixth chapter of the book goes some way to demonstrate the expansion of the story that has gone into the film.

Something tells me that the wig department had a field day on this film...

All that said, there is plenty in the three hours to keep almost any audience entertained. It seems almost redundant to say, but nods to the book are plentiful (including several direct quotations of key lines, a particularly nice touch for the bigger Tolkien fans), and indeed numerous salutes to the previous films as well (perhaps the most obvious of course being Elijah Wood and Ian Holm reprising their roles as Frodo and (old) Bilbo respectively). Pleasingly, those touches do give the first Hobbit film an enormously familiar feel, though that does come with rather a double edged sword. Truth be told, it feels great to be back in Middle Earth; this film is a welcome return to the world of absolute beauty, wonder and mythology that could only be the product of a genius like Tolkien's, but on occasion it doesn't really feel like anything has changed or improved. Tellingly, there are several shots that Peter Jackson could just have substituted in from the first film and nobody would have been any the wiser. As a result, although it feels totally comfortable and brilliantly in keeping as part of the fuller film series, there are very few occasions when anything feels particularly 'new'.

One thing that has changed of course is Peter Jackson's choice of technology. The aforementioned 48fps is double the typical Hollywood frame rate, a theatrical standard that has been in use since 1927. Put in context, that does seem like a long overdue leap forward, and of course, it does have quite splendid results, with the sweeping vistas and high quality special effects looking even more crisp and immersive. The scene with Gollum is of particular note here, and the extra detail does certainly help the movie do justice to such a pivotal and iconic moment, which is brilliantly delivered by Andy Serkis (though truth be told, he's had long enough to get the character right!). That said, the higher frame rate does deliver rather more mixed results in close up shots, and most particularly in close up action sequences. An unwanted side effect means that the effect does have to be rather perfect, as the additional texture and frame definition is a little more unforgiving of the poorer quality effects, of which there are indeed a few.

Someone's not happy... Bloody Bagginses.

Despite sounding increasingly negative in this review, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey actually has an awful lot going for it. As previously mentioned (and as you'd pretty much expect from Jackson and his team) 99% of the visuals are truly breathtaking. Yes, Jackson plays up to it, so a new panorama is seemingly crow-barred in as frequently as possible, but when they look as good as they do, it's mostly forgivable. The added familiarity also adds it's own distinct advantage, bringing with it that sense of magic that just rekindles the excitement of seeing the original series for the first time (so much so that I wanted to go home and rewatch them all immediately). Sure, there are a myriad of moments so forgettable they escape notice before even leaving the cinema, but the bits in the middle that string the story along are certainly more than worthy enough to hold your gaze and attention for the full 169 minutes (105 pages).

The Hunger Games

I'll start by dealing with the elephant in the room; I have not read the book. Or indeed books, plural. None of them. In no way can I comment on how faithfully this film transfers the story from page to screen (although by the relatively reliable accounts I've had so far, it would seem pretty accurate). Instead, I shall deal purely with the film itself. For those in a particularly disagreeable mood, it could be said that 'The Hunger Games' is not necessarily that original a concept. Playing out much like a 'Twilight'-style, teenage themed hybrid of 'Battle Royale' and 'The Truman Show', we are greeted by a dystopian not-so-distant-future, where public obedience is ensured by an annual televised deathmatch pitting 24 teen 'Tributes' against each other, with only a single victor. Simples.

Though quite a brutal sounding concept, the final execution has been kept unashamedly teen friendly. No real surprise since the book series was very purposefully written with that audience in mind, but it did mean that several last minute cuts (including digitally removing blood splashes) were made under the guidance of the BBFC to bring the film in line with a 12A certificate. Personally, I don't think the film looks any the poorer for it; it is still able to realise enough drama and violence to appease even the most ASBO ridden of audience members, and yet is now able to tap into the lucrative adult-accompanied tween market, before they spend all their pocket money on the final Twilight film (cynical twenty-something reviewer alert).

Critical praise has run high for the cast, a view which I very much echo. There are some excellent performances from the relatively unknown leads, who more than competently avoid being upstaged, despite the slick roles for the seasoned pros; Stanley Tucci's chillingly detached reality TV host and Woody Harrelson's alcoholic mentor being of particular note. Donald Sutherland also stands out as delivering an effortlessly sinister performance as the oppressive President Snow, though it comes with a sense that it's a role he's been perfecting for the last couple of decades.
 

They managed to invent a revolutionary new coat-hanger technology, but couldn't think of a way to improve the humble desk chair...

However, and it's a big however, with all that said, 'The Hunger Games' is an object lesson in how an excellent cast and a compelling story can be let down by what seems like such a minor element in the making of a film; the camera work. Right from the beginning of the film, some shots are presented uncomfortably close to the action, looking like the director just kept forgetting his glasses, and making it impossibly uncomfortable to watch and actually focus on any critical part of what's going on. Coupled with the continual and insistent use of shaky camera shots (especially during action sequences), it becomes very difficult to follow or engage with key moments in the story, breaking any kind of drama or tension that had been building to that point. The director has come out and defended his use of the shaky camera work, stating that it "had a lot to do with the urgency of what's going on and to reflect protagonist Katniss Everdeen's point of view". As justifications go, I completely buy that. But my advice to him would be simple; as a storytelling device, it works, but use it sparingly. Unless of course your aim is to end up with scores of cinemas full of people suffering from motion sickness. Sadly, as intriguing as the storyline and acting is, the footage resulting from those decisions becomes really quite difficult to watch.

Aside from that, there are very few other gripes. At a little under two and a quarter hours, I would have said the film has ended up about 20 minutes too long, and is quite slow in some places as a result, but as grievances go, that's pretty minor. There is also a small sense of visual fatigue by the end, as at that point, we've seen an awful lot of forest. Not a lot that can really be done about that given the confines of the storyline, but it would have been nice to see some small attempt to do something, besides the short (and relatively pointless for those who haven't read the books) flashbacks.

In all then, 'The Hunger Games' is an extremely good film, backed by a very likeable cast, but (in my opinion) sorely let down by some poor choices in cinematography. The shaky style does drive some pace into the action sequences, and is of course a useful tool to obscure violent elements that would otherwise rob the film of it's targeted 12A certificate, but it does make it very difficult to hold focus during some really pivotal moments of the storyline. Either that, or I'm just getting old.

How To Train Your Dragon

The first time I saw How To Train Your Dragon, I was enthralled. It therefore gives me even greater pleasure to report that the 2nd and 3rd viewings didn't dampen my enjoyment either. How To Train (or HTTYD as I'm going to refer to it from now on) is pretty simple when you boil it down, but therein lies it's elegance. The premise deals with Hiccup, a young black sheep of a Viking with the sole wish of acceptance. I'm not sure why I identified so personally with Hiccup - the weedy, geeky kid who never succeeds in being macho enough in the eyes of his father - that will just have to remain a mystery, but his story is told through beautiful animation (below), as he becomes friendly with the sworn enemy of his people - a dragon.

Hiccup and Toothless soar through some of the stunning scenery around the island of Berk
(although given it's computer generated, I'd be a little worried if it didn't look pretty spectacular...)

The visuals of the film are really it's strongest card. Don't get me wrong, the story is genuinely touching, but the animation is truly breathtaking in places. Toothless, the aforementioned friendly dragon (below), is every school kid's fantasy childhood friend/pet, and every single one of his reptilian brethren have been beautifully crafted along with the stunning backdrops. Even watching in 2D, the depth in each of the flight sequences is remarkable, but this is actually one of the few films (in my humble opinion) where the addition of 3D is used as an enhancement to some of the key scenes, rather than as Hollywood's new gimmick for the 2010's (not mentioning any names, Jackass, Glee, The Last Airbender, Justin Bieber: Never Say Never etc...).

Toothless gets to grips with emoticons :P

Overall, How To Train Your Dragon is a really great film for young and young-at-heart audiences alike. Which makes it all the more exciting that a sequel is currently being planned for our screens in 2014. It seems an annoyingly long wait, especially given that HTTYD was the tenth highest grossing film in 2010 (only behind the sequel releases of cinema goliaths like Toy Story 3, Harry Potter and Twilight), but I remain hopeful that the gift of extra time will prove fruitful in making sure that the second instalment fully lives up to the charm and beauty of the first.