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: THE THREE MUSKETEERS

THE THREE MUSKETEERS

2011
PG-13


"The three musketeers? I've heard of you."
-- D'Artagnan

The Three Musketeers is a 2011 action film directed by Paul W. S. Anderson that serves as the umpteenth retelling of Alexandre Dumas's classic novel of the same name. The film starts with our heroic trio - Athos (Matthew Macfayden), Aramis (Luke Evans) and Porthos (Ray Stevenson) - valiantly stealing the blueprints for a dirigible-style airship from the Da Vinci Vault in Venice with the help of a woman known as Milady de Winter (Milla Jovovich). After obtaining the plans, Milady betrays the musketeers and gives the prize to the Duke of Buckingham (Orlando Bloom). Fast-forward one year's time, and we find a young man named D'Artagnan (Logan Lerman) making his way to Paris to become a musketeer. When he meets our formerly valiant trio, however, he learns that they have essentially become obsolete under the rule of Cardinal Richelieu (Christoph Waltz) and his guards. Still, D'Artagnan takes up with his idols, and the group soon learns of Richelieu's plot to drag France into a war with England that would allow him to usurp King Louis XIII (Freddie Fox) from his reign over the country.

I'd like to start by saying that I didn't really have any preemptive intention of seeing this film. From the moment I first saw the trailer, I simply thought it was a ploy to cash in on the 3D craze that's currently sweeping movie theaters across the country. In addition, it just didn't look like all that great of a film, so I didn't have any real desire to race to the theaters to give it a view. However, I found myself watching it earlier today, so I might as well give you my views while it's still fresh in my memory.

I guess my first issue with this film was that it's way too over-the-top. Sometimes when a film deliberately chooses not to pull any punches, the audience can enjoy it for its complete ridiculousness, but that's not really the case with The Three Musketeers. The far-fetched nature of the film was just too much to enjoy as I found myself scratching my head at how far they actually chose to go. I mean, let's just start with the dirigible-style airships that do battle during certain points of the film. At first, it seemed like an interesting idea, but once you've got a couple of them engaging in an all-out war in the sky, it just started to seem like an airborne version of Pirates of the Caribbean. So, that's one thing. Also, the screenplay had major issues. I mean, we have your standard story of government corruption and the heroic warriors re-establishing justice by the end of the film, but that's not where I had my issue. My problem with the screenplay was that the characters explained every little thing that happened or was going to happen, almost as though the filmmakers thought they were making the film too confusing for the audience to understand. But when they start explaining the most obvious things, then I started to feel a little bit insulted. It's like every conversation needed a neatly-wrapped bow before the characters could continue on their mission. When your audience starts to feel their intelligence being insulted, there's going to be some issues.

The acting wasn't really all that spectacular, either. While I can't say it's the worst ensemble cast I've ever seen, there definitely won't be anyone creating any type of awards buzz for this flick (but to be fair, did anyone really expect that to happen?). Our four musketeers are serviceable, and Stevenson is good for a steady stream of laughs. He's probably the best-cast character in the film, but part of that could be my personal preference towards the Porthos character. It was also nice to see Waltz in the film considering I had no idea he would be in it. Sadly, as was the case with his performance in The Green Hornet, he just didn't have a lot with which to work in this one. Other than that, most of the actors over-act as much as they possibly can, and I started to get annoyed with the cast pretty early into the film.

The special effects are relatively decent, but there's nothing truly eye-popping about them. I didn't see the film in 3D, so I can't comment on whether or not it was used effectively, but I didn't catch too many "3D pop-out" moments, so they might have gone with the more favorable "3D depth" stance instead. The climactic airship battle sequence is rather well-done even if it made me think of the Pirates films, but I must give credit where credit is due.

Overall, The Three Musketeers is by no means a film you should really give your time. It's not the worst film I've ever seen, but I can't honestly tell you that you should take the time to watch it because that would eat away at my conscience. Still, if you're in for some big dumb fun, then maybe this one's right up your alley. I'd just say wait until you can rent it. There's no reason to spend upwards of ten bucks at the theater for this travesty.

Movie Review Summary
Grade: F
1.5 Thumbs Down

DVD Challenge #8: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: AT WORLD'S END

Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
2007
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 49 minutes

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Yun-Fat Chow, Tom Hollander, & Bill Nighy


The third and then-final chapter in the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise may have garnered the worst critical reviews of the original trilogy, and it may have been the least-understood and least-loved installment of the films to that point, but I for one have always rather enjoyed it. Sure, I'm a bit of a Pirates fanboy, and I have no qualms with admitting myself to be as such. I can see where some may have been put off by At World's End - it's twenty minutes longer than Dead Man's Chest, making it the longest film in the series, On Stranger Tides included. At nearly three hours long, it definitely feels it at certain moments. But I still find it to be a romping ride into pirate mythology and lore.

As I mentioned in my write-up of Dead Man's Chest, the second and third films in the Pirates franchise held relatively true to the basics of pirate mythology. I didn't learn any of this until after seeing the third film in theaters. At the time, I was as confused as everyone else with all of the goofiness of Davy Jones' Locker in the film and its continuation in the film's reality. In addition, the concept of the goddess Calypso got a lot of people scratching their heads as well. As far-fetched as it sounds, it all holds true to the mythological basis of many a supernatural pirate story. And as we saw in The Curse of the Black Pearl, the filmmakers had no problem delving into the supernatural.

And so, if you can suspend your disbelief for the epically long adventure, you're in for quite a treat. Yes, there's a bit of pirate politics involved, and at points, the film moves a little bit slower than the previous films in the franchise. However, it all serves as quite a bit of exposition which may have been better served to be spread out throughout the franchise. We get it all here, as it were, and for those of you who are able, there's a lot to be had. I know that the screenplay offers quite a bit to digest, and I think the sheer magnitude of information we're given pushed a lot of viewers away when the film hit theaters back in 2007. There's so many intertwined storylines that it's a little bit difficult to follow at times, but multiple viewings definitely allow a better understanding.

As usual, we get a slew of legitimate performances. Johnny Depp is Jack Sparrow once again, delving into a bit of a weirder portrayal of him as he battles the doldrums of Davy Jones' Locker. The return of Geoffrey Rush to a starring role is also a welcome sight as his absence in the second film definitely caused me to miss him. We even get a cameo from famed Rolling Stones rocker Keith Richards, whose screen presence is so dominant that it's hard to take your eyes off him.

So although there's many an individual who wasn't fond of this ending to the trilogy, I for one love it equally and find it a legitimate finalé. Had the series ended on that note, I would have embraced the trilogy as it held. Fortunately for everyone, On Stranger Tides hits U.S. theaters tonight at midnight, so we shall see where the winds will take us. I couldn't be more excited.

Previous DVD Challenge: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST (2007)

DVD Challenge #7: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: DEAD MAN'S CHEST

Pirates of the Caribbean:
Dead Man's Chest
2006
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 31 minutes

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley, Bill Nighy, Tom Hollander & Jack Davenport


As we in the United States get closer to the opening day of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, I've decided to watch the original trilogy in preparation. Some of you may have seen my "DVD Challenge" for the first film, but now we're getting into the central film in the original three. I know there's many an individual who isn't terribly fond of the second and third films in the Pirates franchise, but I myself am a bit of a fanatic when it comes to the Jack Sparrow saga.

I think a lot of people got a little too mired in the eccentricity of the storylines in the second and third films. Whereas it took very little imagination to suspend our disbelief for the original flick, adding the concept of Davy Jones and his "pet beastie" the Kraken asked for a little bit more of belief suspension. Originally, I was also a little put-off by the creatures on the Flying Dutchman, but after taking to some reading, I found that the latter Pirates films actually held true to basic pirate mythology. But more of that conversation will come after I re-watch At World's End.

Basically, we get another fantastic performance from Depp, although it's not quite as close to the Oscar-nominated portrayal he gives in the first film. Bill Nighy also does quite well with our villain this time around, bringing a real believability to the computer-generated Davy Jones. And as I stated in my post about my favorite Pirates characters, Jack Davenport brings another facet to his character Norrington.

Overall, we get a movie that's a little bit goofier than the original but still entertaining and engaging enough to be considered a success in my eyes. It doesn't come close to reaching or matching the original film, but it serves well as its immediate successor. It's terribly difficult to create a sequel that outdoes the original, so anyone hoping for something grander than The Curse of the Black Pearl set their standards a little too high. Dead Man's Chest is a fun and energetic film that sets up the final piece of the trilogy well. And the ending of this film still gives me chills every time I see it.

Previous DVD Challenge: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL (2003)

DVD Challenge #6: PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: THE CURSE OF THE BLACK PEARL

Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl
2003
PG-13
Run-time: 2 hours, 23 minutes

Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Keira Knightley, Orlando Bloom & Jack Davenport



When I first heard about the decision to make a film based off the Pirates of the Caribbean attraction at Disneyland, I had just as many reservations as so many others had as well. Adapting a story is one thing, but adapting a ride into a movie is something entirely different. And, like everyone else, I was utterly blown away by just how good the first Pirates of the Caribbean film, The Curse of the Black Pearl, turned out to be.

One of the best decisions they made was to take the step into the PG-13 realm, making Pirates the first PG-13 film ever to be released by Disney. In doing so, the filmmakers gave themselves the opportunity to craft a true swashbuckling tale that wasn't held back to the necessity to remain entirely family friendly. And while it's nowhere near the edgiest PG-13 movie I've ever seen, it's definitely a step further than anything Disney had ever done prior.

Obviously, the first thing that anyone remembers about this film is the brilliant, Oscar-nominated performance of Johnny Depp as our lead Captain Jack Sparrow. And though he's definitely the scene-stealer of the bunch, he's not the only actor giving a fantastic performance. While Captain Jack is off doing his stylish version of piracy, we get a pitch-perfect portrayal of the stereotypical pirate from Oscar-winner Geoffrey Rush. And how can I forget how good Jack Davenport is as the "villain" from the Royal Navy? For a full breakdown of my opinions on the characters, check out my post about my favorite characters from the entire franchise.

We also get a rather strong screenplay, much stronger than one would imagine could come from a film like this. It offers quite a few twists and turns, and it brings the story full circle (for which I'm a total sucker). We also receive a rousing musical score from the mind of Klaus Badelt. It's so good, in fact, that it made it onto my list of favorite film scores from all of cinematic history.

Overall, the first installment of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise is a definite must-see. It's one of my favorite films of all time and ranks at #55 on my list of greatest films ever made. I can't even begin to tell you how excited I am for the fourth installment (On Stranger Tides), due in theaters on May 20. I'm going to watch the other two Pirates films before the new one hits theaters, so be on the lookout for those issues of my DVD Challenge.

Previous DVD Challenge: THE HAPPENING (2008)

Movie Review: BLACK HAWK DOWN

BLACK HAWK DOWN

2001
R

I'd like to consider myself a bit of a movie buff. Most of my friends come to me for advice when picking what flick they should watch over the weekend. I can uncannily tell you the year that quite a few movies were released in a heartbeat. I'm not saying I'm the biggest movie fan, but I do have a bit of an obsession. Despite this, there are obviously quite a few movies that I have yet to see. I mean, I'm only twenty-two, and in the course of cinematic history, I find it difficult to think that anyone could have possibly seen every movie ever made. However, I had one friend who wouldn't take my critiques seriously until I saw The Godfather (which now rests at #18 all time for me), and I still get a lot of "How have you not seen that movie?" for any number of films. Black Hawk Down was one such movie, and I know I'm going to take a lot of flack for waiting this long to give it a gander, but worry no more, for I have finally seen it.

Black Hawk Down is a Ridley Scott film that tells the true story of the Battle of Mogadishu, which was a raid aimed at capturing two high-ranking officials serving warlord Mohamed Farrah Aidid in Somalia. The film follows the ensemble cast that comprises a group of Army Rangers as well as Delta Force operatives who attempt to make the capture but are pinned inside the city when one of their Black Hawk choppers is shot down. The rest of the movie shows the frantic efforts of the soldiers and the higher-ranking officers to get all of their men out of the hostile area of the city.

The filmmakers placed some lofty expectations on this film by having the opening title card read the following quote from the Greek philosopher Plato: "Only the dead have seen the end of war." That's a rather deep and thought-provoking quote to start a war movie, don't you think? I think it sets the stage for the hope that Black Hawk Down will be a war movie with something more. It was a gutsy call, essentially making the audience say, "Alright, now you better back it up and give us something good." And boy, do they ever back it up.

The first thing you're going to notice about the movie, especially if you're watching it now in 2011, is the huge amount of familiar faces. When the film was released in 2001, a lot of these guys hadn't yet made a name for themselves, but now, we've got some heavy-hitters and A-listers giving fine performances all the way around. To give you an idea of how deep of a cast we've got, let me list the men you should recognize most easily (and why you'll recognize them):

Eric Bana (from Hulk and Troy)
Ewan McGregor (as Obi-Wan Kenobi from the Star Wars prequels)
Ioan Gruffudd (as Mr. Incredible from the Fantastic Four films)
Jason Isaacs (as Lucius Malfoy from the Harry Potter franchise)
Jeremy Piven (as Ari Gold from "Entourage")
Josh Hartnett (from Pearl Harbor and 40 Days and 40 Nights)
Orlando Bloom (from The Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean)
Tom Sizemore (from Heat and Saving Private Ryan)
William Fichtner (from Armageddon and The Longest Yard)

Now, I recognized quite a few more people, but they're probably not actors you'd recognize instantly like the ones listed above. Normally, I'd be against having so many recognizable actors in a movie (although that wasn't the problem ten years ago, it left open the possibility for Black Hawk Down to age poorly with too many big-names shoved into one flick), but somehow, it works this time around. We never get a huge, get-to-know-you stage for any one of the characters although some get a little more than others. In a way, the film's screenplay keeps the audience at arm's length from the action, the carnage and the pain, which you can either take or leave. However, the fact that it was written that way helps to counter the fact that we've got a big, big cast and doesn't let the individual stars take over the ensemble piece. That's a huge plus.

The pacing of Black Hawk Down is fantastic as well. For the first hour of the battle, we're nearly going along in real-time with the soldiers while they fight their way to the downed chopper. After that, we have to take jumps in time - otherwise we'd be watching a fifteen-hour movie. Ridley Scott does a great job with directing, never taking his foot off the gas once he's slammed it to the floor. The end result is a high-speed, ultra-realistic war movie that leaves you utterly breathless.

It's difficult to make a war movie that's more than just a glorified action flick. A lot of times, we end up with movies that start out well but simply fall into the same rote shoot-em-ups. Black Hawk Down, however, carries an aura of something more, and I think, going in, the filmmakers knew exactly what they had. Perhaps that Plato quote wasn't as gutsy a call as we would have thought in the beginning.

Movie Review Summary:

Grade: A-
Current All-Time Rank: Best - #121
2 Thumbs Up