The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES (2014)

directed by Peter Jackson

[director filmography: The Hobbit Trilogy, The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, King Kong (2005)]

written by Fran Walsh [The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies, King Kong (2005)], Philippa Boyens [The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies, King Kong (2005)], Peter Jackson [The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies, King Kong (2005)], Guillermo del Toro [The Hobbit Trilogy, Pacific Rim (2013), Pan's Labyrinth (2006)]

starring Ian McKellen [The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies, X-Men movies], Martin Freeman [The Hobbit Trilogy, TV Series "Sherlock" & "Fargo"], Cate Blanchett [Oscar Winner for Best Supporting Actress in The Aviator], Benedict Cumberbatch [The Imitation Game, The Hobbit Trilogy, TV Series "Sherlock"], Orlando Bloom [The Hobbit & Lord of the Rings Trilogies], Hugo Weaving [The Hobbit, Lord of the Rings & The Matrix Trilogies],  lots of dwarves

ENJOYMENT: **** (out of 5)

"Enjoyable and worth seeing" 

I'm a big fan of The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogies, but there is quite clearly a difference between these two franchises and I like them both for different reasons. This shouldn't be a surprise, of course, since the LOTR trilogy is an adaptation from nearly 1200 pages worth of dense material while The Hobbit is based on only 300 pages of thin material. Moreover, the LOTR book trilogy would arguably not have ever been made into three films in the first place had it not already stood the test of time for millions of fans. In fact, the LOTR was so rich with important storylines and subplots that material had to be cut in order to make three 3-hour long movies for theaters. On the contrary, The Hobbit was made much differently; the book did not have enough material on its own to expand into a trilogy and therefore the writers needed to create material themselves. I believe this was the right move, since so many fans were sure to happily join Bilbo and crew back to Middle Earth for three more films, but the material was not tested in the same way. The writers took what was a timeless classic, The Hobbit, and essentially changed it. As a result, these films were not of the caliber of the LOTR, but that's okay--they weren't meant to be. It was not the same rich story as the LOTR with complex character development, compelling relationships, moral and philosophical issues, mature and human-looking characters and it was not as original this time around. Consequently, the filmmakers had to know that The Hobbit would likely not get the critical acclaim of its predecessors, or win an Academy Award for Best Picture as The Return of the King did, but that was the price to pay for the nearly $3 billion they have earned so far from this new Middle Earth trilogy. Despite still being directed by Peter Jackson and having all of the writers from the LOTR plus the one-of-a-kind Guillermo del Toro, The Battle of the Five Armies was enjoyable but by no means a masterpiece. Still, it was definitely worth seeing for some finality for Hobbit fans and it still offered incredible special effects, original battle scenes and the pleasure of any of the other five films.

The Battle of the Five Armies specifically had one of the weaker storylines in The Hobbit trilogy. In fact, this installment contains the actual desolation of Smaug that should have taken place in The Desolation of Smaug. I wonder if the filmmakers thought that there wouldn't be enough of a compelling story in the third film and it would be too much like the LOTR movies if it didn't contain dragon fight scenes. Nonetheless, what Jackson and crew decided worked and the second film was fine the way it was so whatever. Seeing this film in IMAX 3D undoubtably added to the entertainment of this film as well. Still, I have to think about what this movie would have looked like if Smaug was already taken care of in the second film, and I wonder if most people would have left the second film thinking, "Welp, it's over--that was cool." So to keep audiences on the edge a bit--especially those who forgot about Azog and all his orcs and hadn't read the book--and to make another film and therefore another $1 billion, there was a bit of a cliffhanger. It's really hard for me to complain about the plot points or any of the weaknesses in the story telling or editing in this film. Jackson gave audiences everything they wanted in these films: Legolas returned and was cooler than ever, Galadriel was back, Gandalf was as bad ass as ever, Smaug was a pretty fantastic dragon (watch Smaug as special guest on Colbert) and the battle scenes felt pretty new. All in all, The Battle of the Five Armies is a worthy addition and appropriate conclusion to The Hobbit trilogy and is sure to please most fans as long as they aren't too uptight and expect everything they got from the LOTR trilogy. 

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: Maybe some technical awards but nothing else. The Hobbit trilogy was enjoyable, but not to the caliber of the Lord of the Rings. 

Other ratings: IMDB (7.8/10), Rotten Tomatoes (61%)

Selma

SELMA (2014)

directed by Ava DuVernay

[director filmography: only big film to date]

written by Paul Webb

[writing debut]

starring David Oyelowo [Interstellar (2014), Jack Reacher (2012), Last King of Scotland (2006)], Carmen Ejogo [The Purge: Anarchy (2014), Away We Go (2009)], Oprah Winfrey [Lee Daniel's The Butler (2013), The Color Purple (1985)], Tom Wilkinson [Michael Clayton (2007), Batman Begins (2005), Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)]

ENJOYMENT: ***1/2 (out of 5)

"Decent but not the movie it should've been"

I saw this movie later than I would've liked to. I saw it after it racked up a 98% on Rotten Tomatoes, after it was nominated for a bunch of Golden Globes, after it got snubbed for many predicted Academy Award nominations and after the filmmakers and the black community called foul because it was overlooked. I was intrigued, of course, and was surprised when I ended up not liking this movie very much. I mean, it was okay, but the film about MLK's life and the march on Selma should've been one of the greatest movies ever. To me, however, this movie was a big disappointment. Sure, there were points that David Oyelowo's MLK was convincing, that Tom Wilkinson's LBJ made my jaw drop, when the artistic talent of DuVernay shined through and when the depiction of this time in the nation's history made me embarrassed beyond belief. However, this was not anywhere near the perfect film it should've been. It felt like the work from a novice filmmaker. Many of the points that should've packed the most punch felt cheap. Oyelowo's MLK was a good imitation but I never really believed that he was MLK except for in a couple of well-rehearsed monologues. I could go on and on talking about what wasn't quite right with this movie, but I'll spare the details. All in all, I'm not surprised or outraged that this movie was overlooked by the Academy. The Academy is not racist. I'm not sure why it was so highly rated on RT to begin with, and it is understandable that I'd be an outlier from time to time, but I think this movie was lucky to even get a Best Picture nomination.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: Selma nominated for Best Picture. Because it was overlooked for Best Actor, Director and Screenplay, I think the chances of it winning Best Picture are slim.

Other ratings: IMDB (7.7/10), Rotten Tomatoes (98%)

The Theory of Everything

THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING (2014)

directed by James Marsh

[director filmography: Man on Wire (2008)]

written by Anthony McCarten [first big film]

starring Eddie Redmayne [Les Miserables (2012), My Week with Marilyn (2011)], Felicity Jones [Amazing Spider-Man movies, Like Crazy (2011)]

ENJOYMENT: ***1/2 (out of 5)

"Average, but heart in the right place" 

A film about one of the world's leading astrophysicists who was diagnosed with terminal ALS back in the 1960s and is still alive, a prolific author and leading scientist? How could you go wrong? Well, for one, you could make it a romance film and neglect the confusing science stuff. Also, you could focus on the overcoming ALS part and make it just like any other cliched "inspirational" film made about anybody else. Unfortunately, The Theory of Everything seemed to follow this recipe in order to be one of the more average and therefore disappointing films this year. At the beginning of the film, the audience is launched into the 1960s at Cambridge, and the actors seem very comfortable in their challenging roles. There were few hints at this point that I wouldn't love this movie, but when the focus on science and Hawking's work shifted to focus on home life, I knew something was off. Was this a story about the relationship between Mr. & Mrs. Hawking, or was this a movie about Stephen Hawking, one of the most brilliant men of his generation? I understand that "behind every man is a great woman," but that is not my point. Showing homelife is important, knowing what makes someone tick is crucial, getting a glimpse of the folks that play a part in this story is welcomed. But, in my opinion, it would have been much more interesting to focus on Hawking the Scientist not Hawking the Husband and Father. 

We see romance films all the time and this was a chance to make a film that celebrates science, shares the majesty of the universe and inspire others to think more about the field. Instead, there were few times Hawking's science was even discussed let alone explained. This resulted in a timid film that felt as if producers didn't trust their audience to be interested or capable of understanding and it definitely didn't deserve its title "The Theory of Everything". What the filmmakers didn't realize is that the huge appeal of Hawking in the first place is his ability to reach wide audiences and sell best selling books on seemingly arcane topics such as black holes and spacetime. This was a huge miscalculation in my mind, and though I may be biased as a scientist, and I do realize the film was based on the memoir of Mrs. Hawking, I think the more important story would have focused on Hawking the Scientist. Still, I realize that I may be in the minority here since many reviewers and friends did like this film. In addition, Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones both have magnificent performances, the cinematography is beautiful and the world that was portrayed was compelling. I never want to discourage anyone from seeing a movie they think they'll like (this has happened to me too often), but my opinion of this movie is very lackluster and thus I would be interested in hearing some diverse perspectives. Still, I believe that Hollywood has made more than enough romance movies and though this one was unconventional in many ways The Theory of Everything owed it to all of us, including Hawking, to be different.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: Eddie Redmayne will be nominated for Best Actor in a Leading Role and Felicity Jones will be nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role. It will not win.

Other ratings: IMDB (7.7/10), Rotten Tomatoes (81%)

The Imitation Game

THE IMITATION GAME (2014)

directed by Morten Tyldum

[director filmography: Headhunters (2011), some short films]

written by Graham Moore 

[some short films]

starring Benedict Cumberbatch [The Hobbit Trilogy, TV Series "Sherlock"], Keira Knightley [Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy, Anna Karenina (2012), Atonement (2007), Pride and Prejudice (2005)], Matthew Goode [A Single Man (2009), Match Point (2005)]

ENJOYMENT: ****1/2 (out of 5)

"Very entertaining & important film"

For those of you who don't know the story of Alan Turing: you should. He is credited for inventing the computer and he used his invention to help the Allies defeat the Germans in World War II. Also, he was gay and was prosecuted by the British government under "gross indecency" laws despite his great contributions during the war. In addition to being brilliant and gay, however, he was extremely socially awkward and his inability to get along with his peers almost cost him, and the rest of humanity, what inventions he did have a chance to create. Throughout The Imitation Game, it seems that Turing is the only person aware of the importance of what he is creating, and he has little patience for other's ineptitudes. This is what makes The Imitation Game so enthralling, because, since his project is funded by the cash-strapped British government, Turing is usually only one argument and one sour relationship away from having his whole project shutdown. Benedict Cumberbatch is remarkable at playing Turing with all of his certainty, idiosyncrasies and character development, and adds a dimension to this role that couldn't have been done by just any actor. As Sherlock in the amazing BBC series "Sherlock", Cumberbatch plays a genius detective with such awareness and conviction that I thought it would be hard to see him in another, intellectually similar, role. However, Cumberbatch's Turing is completely different than Sherlock: Turing is an actual human with emotions, fears and handicaps as any other person has, and Sherlock is superhuman. The thing that unites these two characters though is how they both care more about the process of solving unsolvable problems than whatever auxiliary benefits the population at large may receive as a result of their work. Both Turing and Sherlock are less interested in saving lives than they are in their own intrinsic curiosities--it just so happens that what they're so obsessed with will also bring a great benefit to humanity. The Imitation Game is a great film created by young and talented filmmakers, acted beautifully by Cumberbatch as well as Keira Knightley and will be one of the most recognized films of 2014.

This film is great for many reasons but one of the main things that I liked about it was the audience perspective. Throughout the film, we are not always reminded of the devastating war taking place on the European continent and at times it seems that the main characters are not so consumed by its horrors. Because of the nature of the war, and the fact that dozens of Ally soldiers were dying every minute, they had to acclimate to these realities quick in order to stay sane. This allows for the characters to have what looks like a somewhat normal life despite living in horrific times, and it was an interesting insight into what must have been the case for those who didn't join the front lines. The chronology of how the story was told was very creative and engaging. The film is told semi-chronologically with flashbacks to Turing's childhood and scenes from after the war interspersed, and this allows us to get further insight into what makes Turing tick as we get to know him more throughout the film. Keira Knightly plays a remarkable character, as a genius problem solver in a man's world, and is an amazing addition and counter-balance to the often-unpleasant Turing. The rest of the film is fantastic and unfolds in very exciting ways. There are many ethical dilemmas that Turing and his team encounters and they culminate when they are forced to make great sacrifices in order to ensure their contributions end up helping to win the war. All in all, this film is a classic addition to the large collection of movies about World War II, but for the first time tells the story of perhaps the most important contribution that helped the Allies defeat the Germans when they did.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS (I wrote this before the Oscar Nominations released this week): Nominations for Best Picture, Best Actor in a Leading Role (Benedict Cumberbatch), Best Supporting Actress (Keira Knightley), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Original Score. It will not win anything. UPDATE: The film did get nominated for all of these award, plus a nomination for Best Director (Morten Tyldum). That was surprising. It still will not win anything.

Other ratings: IMDB (8.3/10, #220 on Top 250), Rotten Tomatoes (90%)

Big Eyes

BIG EYES (2014)

directed by Tim Burton

[director filmography: Dark Shadows (2012), Alice in Wonderland (2010), Sweeney Todd (2007), Charlie and the Chocolate Factory (2005), Big Fish (2003), Planet of the Apes (2001), Sleepy Hollow (1999), Ed Wood (1994), Batman Returns (1992), Edward Scissorhands (1990), Batman (1989), Beetlejuice (1988)]

written by Scott Alexander [Man on the Moon (1999), The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996), Ed Wood (1994), The Problem Child movies], Larry Karaszewski [Man on the Moon (1999), The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996), Ed Wood (1994), The Problem Child movies]

starring Amy Adams [American Hustle (2013), Her (2013), Man of Steel (2013), The Master (2012), The Fighter (2010), Julie & Julia (2009), Doubt (2008), Enchanted (2007), Junebug (2005)], Christoph Waltz [Two-time Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actor in Inglourious Basterds & Django Unchained], Jason Schwartzman [The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), Moonrise Kingdom (2012), Marie Antoinette (2006), Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009), Rushmore (1998)]

ENJOYMENT: **** (out of 5)

"Very entertaining"

This movie was great. I had seen these "Big Eyes" paintings around since I was a kid, but I never knew there was a backstory so enthralling and comical behind it. I didn't know that Margaret Keane rose from obscurity, that Mr. Keane was a sly con artist, and I didn't know that Mr. Keane was taking credit for Mrs. Keane's work the whole time. This film encapsulates the plight of women in the mid-20th century and how far we've come as a society since this time. The story of Keane screams out for Hollywood to jump and make a film about this, and it was as good as you'd expect based on the plot. Tim Burton did a wonderful job directing this film and was a nice homage to his innate storytelling abilities as he's diverted somewhat with his more fantastical, superficial films of late. This was more of an Ed Wood than anything else he's done in the last 20 years. As a side effect, Big Eyes was both aesthetically beautiful and epically told. Both Amy Adams and Christoph Waltz were at the top of their games, and it was clear why they get so much attention as actors. All in all, Big Eyes was a great film, beautifully told and expertly acted. 

OSCAR PREDICTIONS (I wrote this before the Oscar Nominations released this week): Amy Adams might be nominated for Best Actress. It's either her or Jennifer Aniston for Cake that will round off the group of five this year [note: it was actually neither; instead Marion Cotillard was surprisingly nominated for Two Days, One Night]. Christoph Waltz should a nomination for Best Actor, and in some years he might've, but this year is too full already for that category. Adams will not win even if she's nominated way. UPDATE: Amy Adams was not nominated, nor did the film get nominated for any other Oscars.

Other ratings: IMDB (7.2/10), Rotten Tomatoes (71%) 

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part I

THE HUNGER GAMES: MOCKINGJAY PART I (2014)

directed by Francis Lawrence

[director filmography: Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Water for Elephants (2011), I Am Legend (2007), Constantine (2005)]

written by Peter Craig [The Town (2010)], Danny Strong [Lee Daniels' The Butler, Game Change]

starring Jennifer Lawrence [Oscar Winner for Best Actress in Silver Linings Playbook], Josh Hutcherson [Hunger Games movies, The Kids Are All Right (2010)], Liam Hemsworth [Hunger Games movies], Woody Harrelson [TV Series "True Detective", No Country for Old Men (2007), The People vs. Larry Flynt (1996), Natural Born Killers (1994)], Donald Sutherland [Hunger Games movies, Ordinary People (1980), MASH (1970), Phillip Seymour Hoffman [Oscar Winner for Best Actor in Capote], Julianne Moore [The Kids Are All Right (2010), Children of Men (2006), The Hours (2002), Magnolia (1999), Boogie Nights (1997)]

ENJOYMENT: *** (out of 5)

"Falls short, but you still have to see it"

I was one among probably 100 million people around the world who was looking forward to the most recent installment of The Hunger Games series. As a result, I doubt I was the only one who was pretty disappointed. The first two films were fantastic, the first one being a surprise to me because I didn't read the books or believe the hype. In fact, I didn't even watch the first movie until it was streaming on Netflix, but, of course, instantly became super excited about the upcoming sequels. The second installment, Catching Fire, somehow beat the first in my opinion and was a complete and welcomed surprise. So, coming into this third film, my expectations were huge. I saw the early tepid reviews, I tried to check my expectations, but I couldn't help it--I was disappointed. 

Supposedly Mockingjay Part I follows the first half of the book pretty closely, but my major criticism then is that they shouldn't have split the last book into two movies. Or, to make it a complete standalone film, they should've added a storyline or some extra action sequences. It tried to pull a Harry Potter on the last installment to make an extra billion dollars, but instead they should've done what The Hobbit did to beef up the story in order to give the audience something for their money. Despite being let down, and despite most of the major scenes being in the preview, this was still a necessary viewing. We care about these characters, the storyline is still moving forward and you know I'm still stoked for the last film. For these reasons, and for seeing the brilliant acting of Jennifer Lawrence, a welcome to Julianne Moore, one of the last performances by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, eye candy from the rest of the cast and to keep up with the story, you still have to see it. So go ahead and get it over with.

OSCAR NOMINATIONS: Ha.

Other ratings: IMDB (7.2/10), Rotten Tomatoes (66%)

Wild

WILD (2014)

directed by Jean-Marc Vallee

[director filmography: Dallas Buyers Club (2013), C.R.A.Z.Y. (2005)]

written by Nick Hornby

[screenwriter of An Education (2009); author of Fever Pitch (2005), About a Boy (2002), High Fidelity (2000)]

starring Reese Witherspoon [Oscar Winner for Best Actress in Walk the Line], Laura Dern [Fault in Our Stars (2014), Citizen Ruth (1996), Jurassic Park Trilogy]

ENJOYMENT: ***** (out of 5)

"Loved it"

Damn, it was hard to get me to see this movie. I wanted to see Top Five. If it wasn't for the lack of clear Best Actress contenders this year, and that Reese Witherspoon got a Golden Globe nomination for this role, I probably wouldn't have gone. For those of you who have read the book by the same name, it is probably pretty clear that I did not read it. It is probably also clear that I didn't see the trailer or know that it was from the same director as Dallas Buyers Club, because if I did I would not have hesitated to see this film. It is this illogical reluctance to see Wild that makes me wonder how many other near masterpieces I forgo seeing every year that may have affected me very deeply. What have I learned? I've definitely learned that my prejudice against Reese Witherspoon for making a bunch of superficial films in her past (and likely even in her future) needs to end right now--she is one of the best actresses around when she wants to be. I've also learned that Jean-Marc Vallee is a powerhouse filmmaker, Nick Hornby can now be trusted to write pretty much anything, Laura Dern is still alive and acting finer than ever, and that Wild is one of the top 10 movies of the year.

I mentioned that if I had seen the trailer I wouldn't have hesitated to see this film because the trailer shows that Wild is actually about a very troubled young woman [Witherspoon] who needs to hit the reset button in life. Troubled by drugs, by poverty and by tragedy, she is unsure what else to do with herself. I won't ruin any more about the film, or about her character in the film, except to say that her way of hitting reset is to spend her last dollar on buying the equipment she needs (and some that she doesn't) to hike the entire 1,100 mile Pacific Coast Trail--by herself. Along the way, we get to learn more about her past, about her mother [Laura Dern], and about all that brought her to this point. This is filmmaking of masterful caliber with remarkable acting, editing, music, cinematography and locations. I don't want to make a comparison to Into the Wild (2007), because it is different in a lot of important ways, but I was still energized in a similar way after seeing both. In the end, Wild proves to be one of the more heartfelt, raw, and philosophically rich films of the year. It is for anyone who has ever felt that they didn't have a fork in the road, that they didn't have a way out, and that their only option was to shake things up in the most extreme way. This is the true story about a woman who acts on these needs.

OSCAR PREDICTIONS: This film is phenomenal on so many levels, but I think it screams to be overlooked by the Academy for Best Picture or Best Director. It's a hunch that unfortunately rarely fails me. Reese Witherspoon will be nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role and Nick Hornby for Best Adapted Screenplay. If there is justice in the Academy, Laura Dern will also be nominated for Best Actress in a Supporting Role (she was overlooked by the Golden Globes). It's too soon to tell whether Witherspoon will win, because all of the other big films with strong female leading performances haven't been released yet. Also, she already has won once and she doesn't scream 2-time Oscar Winner yet--but who knows, that could just be my prejudice still. (I think it will be Julianne Moore's year for Still Alice--though I haven't seen the film yet. Like I said before, it's just a hunch I get.)

Other ratings: IMDB (7.2/10) as of Dec 17, Rotten Tomatoes (92%)