Trailer Breakdown: THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY

After the smash hit of the Lord of the Rings trilogy in the early 2000s, it was only a matter of time before director Peter Jackson brought The Hobbit to life as well. As one can imagine, Jackson has split the story into three separate films, the first of which - subtitled An Unexpected Journey - will be released this December. Here's the first, and still only, full-length trailer available for the film:

And now, for a few questions that came to mind after watching the trailer:

1. At the end of the day, The Hobbit trilogy is going to be compared to the Lord of the Rings trilogy whether it likes it or not, so why not tackle that right now? How will this new "franchise" hold up in comparison to its predecessor?

When you take a look back at the accomplishments of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, it can seem a bit staggering. Combined, those three films won a total of seventeen Academy Awards and have earned over $2.9 billion at the worldwide box office. You can make the argument that The Lord of the Rings is the franchise of the 21st century, and you probably wouldn't have many naysayers. All that being said, how will The Hobbit fare in comparison? I think the hype leading up to this first film will bring plenty of people to the theaters, but the overall success of the continued franchise will rely on how well-made An Unexpected Journey proves to be.

2. Why is this new saga being released so long after The Lord of the Rings? Will that affect its popularity?

There are a number of reasons that Peter Jackson probably waited this long to bring The Hobbit to audiences, many of which probably deal with his work schedule. In the time between The Lord of the Rings and now, he directed both 2005's King Kong and 2009's The Lovely Bones, both of which were rather grand in stature. After spending so much time creating The Lord of the Rings, the guy probably needed a bit of a break. Seeing as The Hobbit has, like its predecessor, all been shot at once, Jackson ultimately just needed the time to take on such an endeavor.

Now, as to the question of whether or not the nine-year delay between The Return of the King and An Unexpected Journey will have any affect on this new film's popularity, I have a few mixed feelings. Normally, I'd want to say that it will have no bearing, and the recent buzz makes it seem as though there are quite a few people excited for this film. However, in a world where franchises like Spider-Man are being rebooted only five years after the previous installment, it's really hard to say how today's "younger" audience will take an epic feature like The Hobbit. Teens and young adults are sure to be a key demographic for The Hobbit, but these people were only pre-teens or younger when The Lord of the Rings was released. Who knows how they'll respond to a film like this. 

3. Why is Jackson crafting The Hobbit into a trilogy rather than the original plan of a two-parter?

To be honest, I'm still trying to figure this one out. When the announcement for a third Hobbit film was made, Jackson stated, "It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, 'a tale that grew in the telling.'" He hopes that using three films will allow him to tell more of the story, but it's left a lot of people scratching their heads. From a pure standpoint of source material, we can see why a The Lord of the Rings trilogy made sense: it was already separated into three books with a combined page count of over 1500. The Hobbit, however, is a stand-alone story that tops out at 310 pages, making it shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books individually. How can Jackson possibly craft two films, let alone three, out of such a small amount of material? This one has all the feel of a grab for more money, and I'm still not sure how I feel about it. 

4. At least the film seems to have the same vibe as The Lord of the Rings, right?

From this lone trailer, I think we're seeing a lot of the same pieces we got from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, and I think that bodes well for the carry-over audience. At the end of the day, most fans of a franchise want to see something similar to what they've already loved, and The Hobbit presents a very strong possibility for such. The trailer seems to show a good mix of drama, comedy, adventure and action, all of which made The Lord of the Rings such a success. If The Hobbit can dial into that vibe, there's no limit to what success it may enjoy.

5. Doesn't it seem like there are a lot of characters bouncing around?

That was one of my first real issues with the trailer. We're introduced to a number of characters right from the start, and they come flying at you at a very rapid pace. While The Lord of the Rings had a slew of key central characters, it never really felt like there were too many. Everyone played their role, and it all balanced quite well. This trailer, however, makes it seem like there are a few too many new pieces entering the canon, and that may cause a bit of confusion for movie-goers. 

6. Is anyone from the cast of The Lord of the Rings returning for The Hobbit?

While a lot of the talk should be about the newer characters - namely, Martin Freeman as a younger Bilbo Baggins - many people are going to wonder which of their favorite characters will be making appearances this time around. Heavily featured in the trailer is Sir Ian McKellen's Gandalf, so we can be sure to see plenty of him. Also noticeable are the returns of Cate Blanchett as Galadriel and Andy Serkis as Gollum. And according to the cast list, we should be seeing appearances by Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Orlando Bloom, Elijah Wood and Ian Holm. So we'll see how that goes, I suppose.

At the end of the day, none of us can truly be sure as to what's going to happen in The Hobbit, and we can't know for sure just what kind of an impact it will have. Although I wasn't a huge fan of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, I do find the films entertaining, and I understand their impact and presence on the cinematic landscape. For that reason, I am excited for, and am eagerly awaiting, the release of The Hobbit this holiday season.

The Hobbit is currently slated for a December 14, 2012 release here in the United States.

Movie Review: DARK SHADOWS

DARK SHADOWS

2012

PG-13

"They tried stoning me, my dear. It did not work."

-- Barnabas Collins

Dark Shadows is a 2012 comedic horror film directed by Tim Burton that serves as an adaptation of the 1960s and 1970s soap opera of the same name. We meet our hero Barnabas Collins (Johnny Depp) in the late-1700s as he grows into a young man in Collinsport, Maine, where his family has established a fishing community. Barnabas entertains himself with physical relations with a servant named Angelique Bouchard (Eva Green), but is real affection lies with a young woman named Josette (Bella Heathcote). Driven by jealousy, Angelique - who happens to be a witch - casts a spell over the young lovers, sending Josette to her death whilst turning Barnabas into a vampire. After informing the townspeople of his true identity, Barnabas is locked in a coffin and buried alive for over two hundred years until he is unearthed in 1972. He makes his way back to his home and finds his descendants alive but struggling to survive with their failing business. He informs Elizabeth Collins Stoddard (Michelle Pfeiffer), the family matriarch, that he shall return the Collins name to its rightful glory. Little does he know that Angelique has survived as well and has turned the town of Collinsport into her own personal gold mine.

To start, I would like to say that I had not heard of the soap opera that inspired this film until I first learned details about the film itself. By all accounts, the soap is a bit of a cult classic, and considering the ideas and concepts behind it, I'm not surprised to see Burton attempting the adaptation. It's right up his alley, really. It's a dark, gothic tale of a vampire looking to seek revenge and restore his family's name, so what shouldn't there be to like, right? Add the fact that this film has all the makings of a typical Burton venture: Johnny Depp in the lead, an appearance by Helena Bonham Carter and music by Danny Elfman. It sounds like your typical fare.

All that being said, I was not entirely impressed with Dark Shadows. Although I was easily drawn into the story and remained engaged until the very end, there seemed something a tad bit off about this picture. Our story and screenplay aren't quite as strong as past Burton ventures, and I think that's part of the problem. While he kinda manages to blend the comedy and fantasy decently, Burton couldn't find the right amount of balance between the two. At one moment, we're locked in the drama between Johnny Depp and Eva Green, and the next, they're both doing their best to make us laugh. It just seemd as though it was very stop-and-go. We had the right amount of each genre, but rarely did it ever blend together in the proper proportions. One moment we're laughing, the next we're wondering whether the horrific deaths should be funny. Another one of the major problems is that there seems to be too many different story-lines trying to intersect one another. Now, having grown up watching my mother watch "The Young and the Restless," I can tell you that I know just how many stories can be occurring all at once on such a show, and I'm sure "Dark Shadows" was no different. Where the film fails is in its attempt to bring all those story-lines into one two-hour engagement. It proves to be too much to handle, and the entire story proves to be muddled. At the end of the day, it's just a strange tale that could've been fleshed out a little bit better, in my opinion.

Fortunately, we're getting some decent performances to augment the film where the screenplay is lacking. Depp is his usual self, bringing forth yet another memorable character for his ever-growing filmography. He might have been able to mail in this performance, and he still would have managed to be the star. That's not knocking the rest of the cast, but no one quite reaches his level. This is Depp's film, and it should be treated as such. Aside from him, I thought we were getting some good performances from the likes of Jackie Earle Haley and Bonham Carter. I thought Pfeiffer and Green weren't used in the proper way, and both of their performances seemed a tad bit strange. I also thought that Chloë Grace Moretz was vastly underutilized. As one of the stronger actresses making her way up the Hollywood ranks, she definitely has a lot more to offer than what she shows here. Perhaps we can chalk this one up to the screenplay rather than her acting talents. And a quick note: be on the watch for cameos from the likes of Christopher Lee and musician Alice Cooper, the latter of which proves to be both hilarious and entertaining.

If anything is holding this film together, it's Elfman's fancifully dark score. He always seems to have a knack for creating a pitch-perfect musical accompaniment, and Dark Shadows proves to be no different. It's not quite his best score, but it definitely ranks as one of the better ones, if I do say so myself. Here's a little snippet for your listening pleasure:

At the end of the day, Dark Shadows is an entertaining film that's not really going to stay with you for very long. Although it's better than most films released nowadays, it doesn't quite measure up to some of the past Depp-Burton collaborations. You're probably better off watching a film like 2007's Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street, or even 1999's Sleepy Hollow. They're both just a bit better than this particular venture.

Movie Review Summary

Grade: B-

Should You Watch It? Maybe

Movie Review: HUGO

HUGO

2011
PG


"I'd imagine the whole world was one big machine. Machines never come with extra parts, you know. They always come with the exact amount they need. So I figured, if the entire world was one big machine, I couldn't be an extra part. I had to be here for some reason."
-- Hugo Cabret

Hugo is a 2011 family film directed by Martin Scorsese that's based off the novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick. The story follows a young boy named Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) who started living in a train station after being orphaned by his father's (Jude Law) death. His father left him a strange automaton that will supposedly write when it is working properly, and Hugo believes his father programmed the robotic creation to write him a message should he ever be able to fix it. He steals bits and pieces to fix the automaton from a toymaker (Ben Kingsley) in the station until the man catches him and takes away the notebook with the robot's schematics. In an attempt to retrieve the notebook, Hugo follows the man home and enlists the help of his goddaughter Isabelle (Chloë Grace Moretz), who is fascinated by Hugo's livelihood. In their attempt to find the notebook, the two start to realize that there is a deeper story behind the automaton that involves Isabelle's godfather, and they embark on an adventure to find the secrets that lay behind this automaton's mechanical creation.

When I first heard about Hugo, I was a tad bit perplexed as to how it was going to be created. Considering Martin Scorsese has made a career on creating some of the most famous gangster films that contain a slew of adult-only themes, I was fascinated to see how he might handle some more family-friendly fare. The film opened to fantastic reviews - it currently holds a 93% approval rating on Rottentomatoes.com - and has started to receive some high-profile nominations from upcoming awards ceremonies, so it was only a matter of time until I was able to give the film a viewing.

My first reaction to the film has to be one of utter amazement. While I had my doubts going into the film, every one of them was silenced about halfway through. At its base, Hugo is a movie about movies. The first half of the story shows our main characters trying to figure out the meaning behind this automaton, but when it finally yields some sort of message, the film takes a different direction entirely. It leads towards Kingsley's character, who turns out to be none other than Georges Méliès. For those of you cinephiles like myself, that name should easily ring a bell. One of the grandfathers of filmmaking, Méliès was the man who brought us hundreds of short films, most famously Le voyage dans la lune (A Trip to the Moon), in the early 20th century. Here's that aforementioned short film, which I'm sure many of you will recognize:

The swing in the story sparked a number of reactions from me, but most fascinating was the emotional reaction I had to the realization that Kingsley was portraying Méliès. Had I taken the time to look at the cast credits on the Internet Movie Database (IMDb), I would have known this beforehand; because I had not, however, it came as quite the pleasant surprise. The inclusion of this material put an entirely different frame around the film. It went from being just a story about a boy trying to find his place in the world to a story of a boy trying to find his place in the world by bringing an old man a little bit of magic from his past. The context of the film shifts to the life of Méliès, which is followed rather religiously, portraying mostly fact rather than delving into Hollywood exaggeration. The look at early cinematic history was so strong and so beautifully-crafted that I couldn't help but tear up from time to time during the film. It's quite the emotional experience for a film fan like myself.

Let's not forget about the acting though, shall we? Our two young leads - Butterfield and Moretz - are simply fantastic as our central protagonists, and they play off one another well. I've been saying for a while that Moretz is going to be the next big thing on the Hollywood scene, and she's taking another huge step in that direction with her role here. Butterfield, of whom I had not heard prior to seeing this film, also managed to "wow" me with his portrayal of the titular character. Kingsley is at his finest, and although it's not the best role of his career, I'd argue it's easily in the top five. His character experiences the full spectrum of emotion, and Kingsley remains believable throughout it all. We're also getting some great supporting performances from the likes of Christopher Lee, Emily Mortimer and Helen McCrory, and be on the lookout for Ray Winstone in a cameo appearance. Law does well with his limited screentime, and we even get a fine, albeit a little too small, performance from Michael Stuhlbarg (of A Serious Man fame). My only real issue with the casting was that of Sacha Baron Cohen who seemed a little too over-the-top in his role. It works within the constructs of the film, but at times, he's just a little too much.

I'd also like to reference Howard Shore's fanciful score that truly sets the mood for the film. The film takes place in Paris, and Shore is able to create a score that both stands on its own but also brings a very Parisian feel. Despite the fact that we're located in Paris, we're only reminded of it on a few small occasions. The rest of the film takes place indoors - mostly inside the train station - so it's often difficult to remember exactly where we are. However, with Shore's score leading the way, it's impossible to forget our location and the importance it plays in the overall story of the film. Here's just a snippet of the soundtrack, for your listening pleasure:

Ultimately, Hugo is one of the best films I've seen this year, and it should stand as one of the greatest films I've had the privilege to see in my lifetime. Martin Scorsese has had a long and storied career, and he has given the world a slew of fantastic films to think about and talk about and enjoy over the years, but he just may have created his best film to date with this one. I know that's a rather tall order considering his personal filmography, but I'm going to go out on a limb and take the stance regardless of what anyone else happens to think. At its heart, Hugo is a brilliant film that's going to pander to cinephiles more than a casual fan, but there's still quite a bit to love for a viewer of any age.

I'd like to leave you with the critical consensus from Rottentomatoes.com, because I'm not sure I could possibly put it more eloquently:

Hugo is an extravagant, elegant fantasy with an innocence lacking in many modern kids' movies, and one that emanates an unabashed love for the magic of cinema.

If you love film and the magic it has created in the over one hundred years since its inception, then do yourself a favor and see Hugo as quickly as you possibly can.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: A
2 Thumbs Up