The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

The Hobbit could have been many things. It could have been shorter, certainly, like hours and hours shorter. It could have been a more direct adaptation of just the one book, instead of any and all related material that could be found plus some stuff they made up. Most importantly, it could have been a new creative team’s version of Middle Earth, a new interpretation of one of the most beloved fictional universes ever created. But when it came down to it, The Hobbit had to be what Peter Jackson wanted it to be. It’s just a shame he George Lucas’ed it.

I haven’t been as hard on Peter Jackson as I probably should have, for a couple reasons. One is that I know he tried damn hard to pass this series onto someone else, and got pretty close to convincing Guillermo del Toro to do it. I believe he truly loves the works of J.R.R. Tolkein and wanted to do what was best for them, and that meant taking the reigns himself when he couldn’t find a worthy successor in the face of plenty of studio pressure to make this thing happen. The other reason is that I agree with what I believe his idea behind the trilogy is: to frame The Hobbit as a prelude to The Lord of the Rings in a way Tolkein couldn’t. To make something that is tonally and thematically consistent with Fellowship and the other movies while coloring in as much of the universe as possible. That seems like a worthy approach, albeit one that inherently makes it less appealing to die-hard fans of The Hobbit book and people not invested in the cinematic Middle Earth. The problem is he didn’t stick with that single vision.

Like the first Star Wars, The Lord of the Rings trilogy was a passion project from someone who had to fight for everything he got. When they began filming those first movies, everyone considered it crazy; one of the biggest risks in cinematic history. When they started filming The Hobbit trilogy, it always felt more like an attempt to rekindle that former glory, rather than a new adventure. If you go back and watch the Production Diaries on YouTube, it’s just not the same as all the behind-the-scenes stuff from the last trilogy. Does anyone believe that the Martin Freeman and the thirteen dwarf actors feel the same brotherhood as the fellowship did? That last series was a quixotic quest, this one felt like a long job.

Not that I think any of the actors are bad or that anyone made this film as cynically as I talk about it. I think that Peter Jackson, like George Lucas, loves filmmaking technology, and was all too willing to use green screen and CG in place of the more complicated tricks he had to employee previously. Case in point: The Battle of the Five Armies (which is just called The Battle of Five Armies in the book, by the way) introduces a new dwarf character played by Billy Connolly who is entirely CG for some reason. At least it looks that way. What’s going on there? Why would you do this? Why would anyone do this?

The majority of the final chapter of this trilogy is spent building up to this eponymous battle and then actually showing the fighting – all the big cliffhangers from the last movie are quickly swept under the rug in favor of scenes that begin to feel redundant. We see Thorin (Richard Armitage) stubbornly giving into his greed over and over. Bard (Luke Evans) try to broker a peace over and over. Legolas be a cool douche over and over. This is because they’re trying to turn the climax of the story into it’s own story, and it just doesn’t work. It will never feel right, and frankly I hope that Topher Grace or whoever steps up and edits this trilogy down into one tight movie. That might actually be truly great. Instead we’re left with a trilogy that is exhausting for most, infuriating for true diehard fans, and mildly pleasing for people like me, who are more happy looking into Wikipedia than The Silmarillion.

Interstellar

Since Interstellar came out, how has the world changed for you? It’s been about a month (sorry about that) and I don’t think anyone’s really talking about this movie anymore, having moved on to discussing all the teaser trailers that have debuted recently. Personally, I’ve had a draft of this review in the back of my head for pretty much that entire month, so Interstellar has never been far from my thoughts.

Immediately after I saw Interstellar on opening night, I was disappointed. Disappointed that a movie with so much ambition and scope succumbed to the same problems Chris Nolan movies tend to: plot contrivances that don’t stand up to scrutiny, clunky expositional dialogue, a third act that is designed to resolve everything somehow too neatly. Those problems stood out more to me because this wasn’t an action movie like everything else Nolan has done recently, this was a sci fi odyssey meant to illuminate the true nature of humanity. I knew what I wanted Interstellar to be and it didn’t live up to that.

It pisses me off that mankind, I’m talking about all of us in real life now, doesn’t seem more interested in space exploration. You know the big line from the movie, the one that feels kind of weird in the actual film but works great for all the marketing? “Mankind was born on Earth, it was never meant to die here.” That’s how I’ve felt my entire life, and it baffles me that 99.99% of our money doesn’t go straight to NASA. So I was real excited for a movie that shows the folly of our species’ current path, and hope for the future. I was ready for a movie that had people furious about global warming and unsustainable consumption. That’s what I wanted. Chris Nolan wanted to make a movie about love and gravity.

The second time I saw this movie, it was a few weeks later in an IMAX theater. I still hadn’t read any reviews – I am one of those people who tries not to read reviews of things I want to review myself until I actually write something – but I had talked to some people about their thoughts on the movie. Also, I heard from Neil DeGrasse Tyson that some of the science in the movie is pretty accurate, and a lot of it deals with concepts that we straight up don’t understand right now. All that helped me get out of my own head and enjoy Interstellar for what it is.

This is a movie obsessed with the theory of relativity, among other ideas at the limits of our understanding of astrophysics and even beyond that. Get ready for many, many discussions about wormholes, black holes, gravitational anomalies and other science facts. Interstellar‘s greatest achievement is how it marries real-life science with cinematic spectacle. Every trippy, jaw-dropping moment in this movie is made slightly better with the knowledge that this might actually be how something in our universe really works. This might actually be a thing out here in the place where we live.

And don’t let the epic length fool you, Interstellar is an exciting movie. There are a few scenes in this movie that I feel like jocks and geeks alike will remember fondly in the years to come: the trip through the wormhole, the first new world, the docking sequence. Nolan is a master of building tension and giving dramatic actions exactly as much weight as they deserve. And if you don’t think about it too much, it’s all awesome.

Yeah… I just can’t turn that part of me off, even after a month. There are parts of Interstellar that frankly seem dumb to me, and in a movie like this, that’s a problem. Inception kind of had this problem too, where if you pick at the plot threads a little bit it all unravels terribly, but it wasn’t a big deal because it was an action movie set in a dream world – that’s kind of the deal there. The end of Interstellar is just deeply unsatisfying to me, that’s about all I can say without writing a whole other post about that specific topic.

But a few bumps in the road doesn’t mean it’s not worth the drive. Especially when it’s something as ambitious as Interstellar, which is still in theaters and deserves to be seen on the big screen. Come on, what have you got to lose? The crowds are gone at this point. Get out there and see the stars.

Super Smash Bros. for 3DS

It’s been a year of hotly anticipated games for me and any other early adopters out there. Titanfall, Infamous, Destiny, Bayonetta, Sunset Overdrive, and more all promised to help define the early part of this console generation and help folks like me justify owning these silly consoles in what looks to be the era of the PC. But no game, not even the new Dragon Age, has me as excited as the new Super Smash Bros.. For my friends and I, this series is just the best for party-time fun, and that new version looks like it might be the best yet.

Super Smash Bros. for Wii U will be out a week from now, less than two months from the release of Super Smash Bros. for 3DS, a game that was delayed from the summer to early October. It is the series’ first mobile entry, the only one (aside from the first) that you can’t play with a GameCube controller, and the first one that was almost entirely a singleplayer experience for me. And if you somehow didn’t know, Smash is a lot more fun with friends.

Sure, there absolutely is online multiplayer, which I commend Nintendo for trying. It’s a smartly designed mode – I especially like that the separated this game’s equivalent of ranked and free play into the hardcore “For Glory” mode and the item and gimicky-friendly “For Fun” mode. But in my experience online play so terribly laggy I can’t even enjoy it. The modern Nintendo is starting to understand how important the Internet is to games, even delivering excellent support in the last Pokemon and Mario Kart titles, but Smash Bros. just does not seem up to snuff.

So you’re left with singleplayer. Super Smash Bros. for 3DS actually has a bunch of modes, but the goofy, fan-servicey Subspace Emissary is gone from this version. Instead there’s this weird rush mode where you and other players run around a wide open dungeon collecting powerups for a mystery challenge battle. I don’t like it. Also, there’s a straightforward six stage arcade mode, various gimmick challenge battles to beat, the homerun contest, and a new version of break the targets that’s pretty much Angry Birds. Nothing super exciting.

But! Those modes are redeemed somewhat by the addition of character customization. One of the new fighters in this game is your Mii character, and you can collect a bunch of fun accessories to dress them in. You can also collect various items that give stat boosts to any character, as well as alternate versions of their special moves, meaning you can customize your Bowser to be faster but weaker or Captain Falcon to have a stronger defense. I actually really don’t like this aspect of the game, but can easily imagine some people falling in love with it.

What I do love is the game’s massive roster, the character select screen completely fills the whole top screen and is rather daunting to look at. Most of your favorite characters are back, although I’m going to miss Snake quite a bit. There are also a bunch of newcomers, many of whom bring fun new play styles: Little Mac can put a serious hurt on, but has no hops, Duck Hunt Duo are master trolls, and the likes of Wii Fit Trainer, Pac Man and The Villager (from Animal Crossing) are surprisingly good and real funny.

And just having that knowledge makes Super Smash Bros. for 3DS feel like an OK purchase. If I think about the game as an extended, portable demo of the Wii U version, I’m actually pretty happy with it. It’s given me a chance to start figuring out exactly which characters I like to play and what to expect out of the bigger, better version. Controls are customizable, the game looks good enough and runs at a smooth 60fps, so it’s not like it’s a compromised experience except for the online. It’s solid. Is it something I would recommend most people buy once the other version’s out? Not unless you’re going to be around other people with 3DSs and copies of the game. These games are meant to be played with friends. That’s why it’s “Super Smash Bros.” not “Super Smash Man.”

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)

Birdman is expanding to a bunch of theaters this week and so it is definitely worth my time to try to put some key presses into trying to quantify the weird, engrossing experience that was my experience watching that movie.

Michael Keaton plays Riggan Thomson, an actor who achieved great fame 20 years ago by playing the super hero Birdman – which is an obvious satire of Batman and in no way related to the Hanna-Barbera cartoon character. Since walking away from that franchise at its greatest popularity, Riggan has struggled to keep his career going and has hedged his bets on writing, directing, and starring in a stage adaptation of Raymond Carver’s short story “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love.” Also he has magic powers and is haunted by the voice of Birdman.

This is Riggan’s last chance and he has to fight for it as he faces doubts and criticisms from his daughter (Emma Stone), his lawyer (Zach Galifianakis), his last-second replacement co-star (Edward Norton), the press, critics, and a skeptical public. Through all this the movie makes it clear that Riggan just wants to be considered an artist – that’s why he’s doing this play, that’s why he walked away from his blockbuster franchise, that’s why he wasn’t a better father, or person. Whether he really is an artist, whether he’s actually being true to himself or if it’s really all about ego… That’s up to you.

Which is the way things should be in a movie this intensely surreal. On top of Riggan’s supernatural abilities, the movie is shot and edited to feel like it’s almost one long, uninterrupted take and I could definitely feel it. Despite being mostly scenes of people arguing about acting and other theatrical logistics, the whole two hours were fairly tense just because of how aware I was of the number of plates they had to keep spinning between getting actors to their marks, making sure they perform well, and everything else behind the camera like sound, camera angles, and lighting. It’s really quite gripping.

Birdman is a complex film worthy of some serious conversation – I had a hard time just trying to wrestle my many thoughts about it into this brief review. It is an exciting showcase of the possibilities of modern filmmaking grounded by some terrific performances by Keaton and Norton and an earnest, if not particularly unique, take on the creative process. Almost like a Charlie Kaufman film, except one that’s happy to pay just as much attention to slapstick and dick jokes as it is its lofty themes.