SPECIAL REVIEW: The Shawshank Redemption

The Shawshank Redemption gets 5 out of 5 stars. But then again, everybody and their grandmother knows that The Shawshank Redemption is one of the greatest movies ever made, and so just giving it a numerical score isn't justice enough to the film, so I'll get it out of the way now. But what makes The Shawshank Redemption so good? Read my thoughts below!

The Shawshank Redemption (Rated R for language and prison violence)

The Shawshank Redemption opens up as banker Andy Dufresne (Tim Robbins, Mystic River, Jacob's Ladder) is being tried for the murder of his wife and her lover, to which he tartly objects. He is then sent to Shawshank Prison, the toughest prison in Maine, where longtimers Red (Morgan Freeman, do I even need to say what he's from anymore), Heywood (William Sadler, Bill and Ted's Bogus Journey, Die Hard 2), and others take bets to see which one of the newcomers will break down first. The entry of Andy's lot gives us a hint of the grittiness of Shawshank, and the rest of Andy's first night shows us the brutality of Shawshank. Yet in the first hour, we see that there is hope in Shawshank, companionship at Shawshank-- themes that ride along for the remainder of the picture, all the way to the very last shot.

The Shawshank Redemption is a most curious film. It is notoriously the number one movie in IMDb's Top 250 list, yet it barely made a profit. The plot, when you hear about it, seems like it'll make the most boring movie: The Shawshank Redemption tells the story of a banker who is sent to prison with two life sentences, meeting lifelong friends and experiencing brutality and injustice. There's really not much to the story of the film, but the two hours it lasts is the most rewarding I've probably ever had. Typically, you would say that such a case means that the film rides on the talent of its actors, but, while the performances are still superb, everything that we see as an audience makes this, perhaps, the greatest film of all time. The film rarely slows down, yet it takes its time. Frank Darabont is, in my opinion, the most understated writer-director, yet also the best one there is. This is based off a Stephen King novella ("Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption"), but this movie, unlike most book-to-film adaptations, is almost entirely independent of its source material. There are things in this film that aren't easily done just in prose, such as the subtle foreshadowing ("His judgment cometh soon and that right quickly"), or some of the brutal torture sequences--done in silhouette, leaving most to the imagination, thus making the impact doubly terrible to watch--or the iconic "Shawshank shot" at the end of the film. Not just any director could have tackled this material, nor could have any writer, or any composer or cinematographer. Everything is done so well that the slightest change to it would make it less powerful.

After Andy comes, he's to himself for a long while and doesn't make much talk with anybody. We the viewer, as the film progresses, see his smug smile and odd body language, and we don't know what that means until the end of the film--I won't spoil it here. He's also a most unusual character, breaking the prisonmates' status quo countless times. As I write this, I distinctly remember a scene around the 45-minute mark where Andy, Red, and several others are working on roofs when Andy does the unthinkable. However, his confidence ultimately pays off, winning his companions beer--he doesn't take any. Red narrates his hypothesis: "I think he did it just to feel normal again." Again, that theme carries on for a majority of the picture, with certain prisoners fearing institutionalization and becoming alien to society forever.

One of the most interesting parts of the film is that we're so invested in the characters and drawn in by the drama of Andy's time in Shawshank that we don't realize there's a central villain until about half the film is done. What does our villain and the Shawshank prison staff encompass? Hypocrisy, and the prisoners realize it. In fact, at times, it seems as if the prisoners--murderers, thieves, and rapists--are more innocent than the guards and wardens. I mean, it's a prisoner that brings about the eponymous "Shawshank Redemption!" And the payoff that the film has is incredibly rewarding. I can't see many people disliking the film, especially not for the ending--it's probably one of the best.

Is the film occasionally sad? Yes, some may cry. Is the film depressing? At times, as you feel the highs and lows of every character. Is it hopeful? Definitely, and I can't say a negative thing about it. It's almost unfair that this film was rated R because one of the major themes is true friendship--a theme missing from children's/family films and television these days. It's a mature film, but a film for everybody at the same time. It's not incredibly tough to watch, yet it's brutal. It is the movie that defines all movies. It's not my all-time favorite, but it's in my Top Two. Forrest Gump won Best Picture at the Oscars that year, and while I love Gump a whole lot, I honestly think that Shawshank should have won the big prize that year, and then some. If you haven't seen it yet, do yourself a favor and buy it for $5 at Target or Walmart. It's incredible, and it goes to show that it doesn't matter if your movie doesn't make a lot of money at the box office; what matters is that your movie makes the most lasting impression on people years after your film is released. This September marks its 20th Anniversary, and it'll undoubtedly be remembered for, at least, 20 more.

"You either get busy living or get busy dying."

What more can I say? Have you seen The Shawshank Redemption, and what did you think about it? What's your favorite film of all time? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2014

It's a new year, which means new movies, and new movies mean great things are going to happen. And since this is a favorite of other reviewers, I thought I'd try my hand at this and give you my most anticipated movies of 2014.

Voyage of Time (2014?)

Dir. Terrence Malick; Star. Brad Pitt, Emma Thompson

This one is perhaps the most interesting out of all of these for a few reasons. Number one: I have almost no idea of what it's about. Some sources say it will be a documentary about space, which is certainly interesting, but what interests me is the director-star pairing of Terrence Malick and Brad Pitt, who worked very closely together on my favorite film, The Tree of Life. Secondly, IMDb describes the film as "An examination of the birth and death of the known universe," which seems like a companion piece of The Tree of Life, which is what got me interested in it in the first place. This film has no confirmed release date because of certain financial disputes, but as of now, it's tracking for 2014, and when it hits theaters (or iTunes), you can bet your bottom dollar I'll be watching this...even if no one else will.

Noah (March 8, 2014)

Dir. Darren Aronofsky; Star. Russell Crowe, Emma Watson, Anthony Hopkins

Noah will tell the classic Noah and the Ark Bible story in an epic format. I've been following this film since the beginning of this year, and I'm excited to see how this film turns out, since it's not very often we get a Biblical film on the big screen with a $100 million-plus budget. The last major Biblical film release was The Passion of the Christ, the highest grossing R-rated, and foreign language, film in the US, and while I don't feel that Noah will be either of those, I'm excited to see how the controversial director, Aronofsky, does with this material, especially when adding Noah's nemesis, an adopted daughter, and six-armed Watcher angels from Jewish lore. He had to add things to make a decently-sized movie; I hope it pays off in the end.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (April 4, 2014)

Dir. Anthony and Joe Russo; Star. Chris Evans, Scarlett Johansson

I'll be honest: the only reason I'm interested in this film is because the trailer was amazing, or rather, STURDY. The film will follow Captain America working with S.H.I.E.L.D. after The Avengers, and from that we get some awesome new characters, a mysterious foe, and some interesting themes of freedom vs. fear and terrorism vs. justice. Those kinds of themes interest me, and the last few films with Cap were entertaining. Let's do this thing...for 'Merica!

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 (May 2, 2014)

Dir. Marc Webb; Star. Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Jamie Foxx
Now this is a film I was a bit on the edge about. I remember liking The Amazing Spider-Man better than the Tobey McGuire-Sam Raimi films, so I was obviously ready for a new sequel. Then I saw the first trailer for the new film, and I felt excited and not excited at the same time. The film just didn't look as good as it should have, I thought, even though the villains seemed interesting (Jamie Foxx plays Electro). But then I saw the trailer before The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug, and I was hooked. This movie does look awesome, and it should be seen in theaters, probably in 3D. So why quit on a franchise early? If it's not great, at least it'll be fun!

X-Men: Days of Future Past (May 23, 2014)

Dir. Bryan Singer; Star. Hugh Jackman, James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender

Days of Future Past was a film I had also been following for a bit. I've seen all the X-Men films sans the Wolverine-only ones, and I've enjoyed most of them. Future Past serves as a direct sequel to both prequel First Class and to X-Men 3: The Last Stand/The Wolverine. How can this be so? Time travel, of course, with Wolverine going back in time to help young Charles Xavier find his way back to his destiny, especially when the existence of mutants are at stake. This film had a butt-kicking trailer, and the story seems interesting. What could go wrong?

Interstellar (November 7, 2014)

Dir. Christopher Nolan; Star. Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine
Interstellar was originally a film that was going to be made by Steven Spielberg before he gave it to the Nolans. The only two things I know about the plot is that it's about wormholes and corn. Certainly an interesting combination, but I loved Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy and I enjoyed Inception, so Interstellar looks like it'll be one of the smartest, if not entertaining, films of the year. And Michael Caine is in it? When has he ever phoned in a performance?

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay—Part One (November 21, 2014)

Dir. Francis Lawrence; Star. Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson
I didn't review Catching Fire, but I mostly enjoyed the film, and I certainly enjoyed it enough to want to see Mockingjay. I've not read the books, though I own them all, but Catching Fire and its political themes of rebellion and oppression get that Les Mis excitement rising up in me. How will it all pan out? Well, I guess that's what the next two films are for!

The Hobbit: There and Back Again (December 17, 2014)

Dir. Peter Jackson; Star. Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage

Did you not expect this on here? There and Back Again is the sequel to The Desolation of Smaug, and as a fan of The Hobbit, I am excited for the finale. I have questions, I have concerns, and I strongly believe they will all be addressed in this film. Not to mention we get to see more of the dragon and the legendary Battle of Five Armies. Peter Jackson, do well. If he makes things relevant, and he makes his changes just, this may be the best Middle-Earth film since The Return of the King.

That's my list. What are you looking forward to this year? Are there any up here that you could care less about? Also, I want to know what January movie you guys think I should see by answering a poll on my Facebook page here, and please "Like" the page. Anyways, whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

A Year in Review: 2013

"And now, the end is near, and so we face the final curtain. My friends, I'll say it clear. I'll state my case of which I'm certain:" it's been an interesting year at the movies. What started out as a marathon of critically poor films has turned into some of the best cinema has to offer. I'd love to reflect on the hundreds of movies that came out this year, but, however, my schedule (and wallet...and age) does not permit such luxuries (at times, it's a blessing). As of such, I only saw 6 of this year's films, either in theaters or on DVD later in the year. So instead of a top 10 list, I'll just rank all the films I saw in my order of preference. I thought about doing something like that last year, but, well, I didn't. So we'll just start here, with my list of the movies that I saw in 2013.

6. Now You See Me
Dir. Louis Letterier; PG-13 

Coming in at the bottom of my list is the surprise summer blockbuster, Now You See Me. It wasn't an awful film; in my review, I called it a fun chase film, awarding it 3 out of 5 stars. However, it's not a film I often think about, and the highlight action sequence pales in comparison to those of other films that came out this year. If you have a free night available on HBO, or you have some friends over with Redbox or Netflix at hand, put in Now You See Me--you'll have fun, even if the film isn't great.

5. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Dir. Francis Lawrence; PG-13

Coming in at number 5 is a film that I did not review. I felt that with the circumstances that led me to see the film, the audience I saw it with, as well as the fact that I had not seen or read the first Hunger Games book/movie, it wouldn't be appropriate to do a full review of it. However, here I can say that if I did review it, I would have given it a score of 3.5 out of 5 stars. The film was thoroughly entertaining, and the energy never let up. I enjoyed the revolutionary themes and the corrupt oppressive government. However, I felt three major things kept the movie from being as good as it could have been: a Twilight-style love triangle, a too-sudden ending (I don't care if it was that way in the book), and monkeys--it will make sense when you see it. But they're just a few things--so go see it! It's by no means the best movie of the year, but it's a darn good one.

4. Warm Bodies
Dir. Jonathan Levine; PG-13 

Coming in at number 4, we have the zom-romcom Warm Bodies, which, in my original review, I gave 4.5 out of 5 stars. In retrospect, I may have been a bit too gracious with my score, but this was a very funny film with original directing. It was thoroughly entertaining, and a fresh take on the supernatural craze these days. One of the few good movies that came out in February, Warm Bodies makes it to the number four slot in this list.

3. The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug
Dir. Peter Jackson; PG-13

I may have focused a bit on the negatives in my original review, but I thoroughly enjoyed The Desolation of Smaug, giving it 4 out of 5 stars. What it lacked in emotion, it made up in nuance and entertaining action sequences. Better than An Unexpected Journey in many ways, this little Hobbit made me a very happy fellow, eager to see how Peter Jackson paints the finale for Smaug, Bilbo, Thorin, and the gang. Now you may be wondering why a 4 is higher up than a 4.5, and that's because I enjoyed The Hobbit a bit more than the technically better Warm Bodies. Regardless, if you haven't seen this yet, see at some point, whether now or during the trilogy marathon at AMC Theaters for There and Back Again (you know it's going to happen).

RUNNER-UP: Zero Dark Thirty
Dir. Kathryn Bigelow; R

With all the Oscar buzz that happened towards the beginning of the year, and watching it around the same time as last year's Argo, I had forgotten that, technically speaking, Zero Dark Thirty was a 2013 film, and it is one of my favorite films, earning a score of 4.5 out of 5 stars in my original review. This Osama bin Laden assassination thriller is gritty and realistic, but it's also, in a way, thought-provoking. I still think about the last shot of Maya on the plane leaving Iran after seeing bin Laden's dead body. This movie explores themes of vengeance and what happens when we let vengeance control us. Many people argue this as a propaganda piece, but I disagree. It's a film that explores important themes and a film that you can think about, even if you can't thoroughly enjoy it because of its subject matter. If you can handle some R-rated language and torture sequences, make sure you check out Zero Dark Thirty--my second favorite film of the year.

BEST FILM: Saving Mr. Banks
Dir. John Lee Hancock; PG-13

This is undoubtedly the best film that I saw this year. I was pumped for Saving Mr. Banks since I reviewed the trailer back in July, and this film did not disappoint at all. Entertaining, funny, heartfelt, and with fantastic performances from everyone involved, especially those of Emma Thompson and Paul Giamatti. Mary Poppins is a revered classic among many, especially Disneyphiles, and this is one of the few films that I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. That has not happened since I saw Les Miserables last year. Why? Because this film was made, not as Disney propaganda (Walt Disney isn't painted as Mr. Perfect), but as a meaningful picture that was careful in what it did. Were some events altered from real life to film? Likely. But does something like that really matter when this film is put together so well? Butter my butt and call me a biscuit if this film does not at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Academy Awards. I need to see this film again before I can say it's one of the best films I've ever seen, but I can tell you, this rightfully deserves all 5 out of 5 stars.

Well, there you have it! As time goes on, I'll certainly watch the films I've missed, like Gravity and Captain Phillips and Frozen, but I didn't see any of them in time to make them one of the films I would put on this list. When I see them, I'll let you know what I thought about them right here. But before that, I feel that I have some explaining to do. Back in July, shortly after the facelift, I published a post entitled "Changes: A Branch of the Tree of Life," in which I explained that the blog as a whole would dramatically change within weeks of the post. As you can tell, that has not happened, and I fear it may not for some time more. I do plan to move from here eventually, but I don't have the time right now that would justify having a separate website with a new URL. When my time frees up more, then it will be more practical to consider moving away from "The Pianoman's Blog." When I find that opportunity, I will share my plans, and when the move occurs, I will celebrate with an in-depth review of The Tree of Life by Terrence Malick, my favorite film of all time. But until then, check my tribute of this year at my new YouTube channel! Click the YouTube button on the video to subscribe!



But as Michael Buble once sang, "it's a new dawn, it's a new day, it's a new life, and I'm feeling good." What films did you see this year that you enjoyed? That you hated? That you were indifferent about? What film in my list do you find my thoughts absolutely ludicrous for? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below! Happy New Year, y'all!

NEW MOVIE: Saving Mr. Banks Review

"Winds in the east--there's a mist coming in, like something in brewing and 'bout to begin!" These words open one of the newest films out in theaters, which retells the story behind the classic Mary Poppins film. And let me tell you: it's a spoonful of sugar. Here's my review!

Saving Mr. Banks was one of the first films I reviewed for my "Trailer Park" segment back in July. In case you don't remember, I gave that trailer the most positive rating, predicting it to be the best movie of the year. While I don't know if it is the best movie of the year, it is certainly the best film I have seen this year.

Saving Mr. Banks, as I mentioned before, explores the story behind Mary Poppins, following the book's author, P.L. Travers (Emma Thompson, Nanny McPhee, Stranger than Fiction), during the pre-production of the classic Disney film. As she works with Walt Disney (Tom Hanks, Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan), the Sherman Brothers (Jason Schwartzman from I Heart Huckabess and B.J. Novak from The Office), and the rest of the Walt Disney Studios crew, we also get windows to her past and why she's so bloody protective of the material. Like many others have noted, the film relies on the unwavering personalities of both the straitlaced Travers and the happy-go-lucky Walt, who both display their different takes on how the Mary Poppins story should be told and also on professionalism as creative geniuses.

Like director John Lee Hancock's last film, The Blind Side, Saving Mr. Banks is a character-driven piece. While the behind-the-scenes portions at Disney Studios are plenty entertaining, it's Travers's relationships with Don DaGradi (the co-writer of the Mary Poppins movie, played by Bradley Whitford from Billy Madison), the Shermans, Disney, her chauffeur (played by Paul Giamatti, American Splendor, Saving Private Ryan), and her father (in flashbacks) that provide the heart of this movie, in more ways than one. But a character-driven film cannot have a heart without strong performances to make it grounded and believable...and it has just that. Colin Farrell (The New World, Total Recall) plays Travers's father, an playful father, but we discover that it is only a facade for his young children, including P.L. Travers, that hides his occupational failures and alcoholism. I feel like he'll be the character that many audience members will relate to and have compassion for, and Farrell portrays tragedy and gaiety, a challenging mix, in what may be the best performance of his career thus far. One cannot go without noting Emma Thompson's Oscar-worthy performance of Mrs. Travers. The author was a challenging person to work with, according to Richard Sherman, and Thompson certainly shows it ("I don't want any red in the picture. I've suddenly come with an intense dislike of the color.), but amid her more ridiculous requests (read, demands), both the screenplay of this film, which was made outside of Walt Disney Studios, and Thompson's performance show a more human, sympathetic, and tragic side of her character to the point that you can understand her; in fact, I may have teared up towards the end--I didn't cry, though (tears are reserved for Wilson)! Lastly, I'd be a fool to undermine Giamatti's performance. It's not Oscar-worthy or anything, but he makes who would typically be the most insignificant character into one of the most memorable.

Hancock's direction wisely transitions back and forth from Travers's childhood in Australia to the present-day pre-production stages of the film without making it seem repetitive and trite. The transitions are well-timed, making the film well-paced-- the two hours that you will spend with this film go by rather quickly, but still it feels complete. He also makes some nice nods to the original film (Mary Poppins), and uses them in a way that doesn't just feel like fan-service. Had I seen Mary Poppins more recently, I probably would've picked up on a lot more than I did watching it now, but missing out on these Easter Eggs won't destroy your overall enjoyment of the film. Another thing to note is the colorization of the film. Now hear me out on this: I don't go to a movie and try to pay attention to these kinds of things, but it's near impossible not to notice the bright colors surrounding the film, and, to me, that helps release some of the Disney magic, even in the more unsettling PG-13 sequences halfway through the film.

This isn't my most in-depth review--in fact, it's more like my brief review of Driving Miss Daisy--because while I was watching it, I forgot about seeing it from a critical eye because I enjoyed it so much. There wasn't much to take me out of the film. There were a few things that I noticed that made me think about the movie as a craft more than an experience. For example, during one musical sequence, the writers run through "Fidelity Feduciary Bank," and Mrs. Travers is distracted by a vivid memory of her father speaking the exact same words in a speech. Could that have really happened? I'll think against it, but it was a well-done sequence, so I can't really complain, especially when I gave the film where an old man takes a 45-foot tumble through a tunnel 4 out of 5 stars! But there is one scene that is accidentally hilarious: during the Disneyland sequence, there is a little girl--obviously an extra-- waiting to get on the carousel with Walt Disney and Mrs. Travers, but she overacts her excitement so much--you have to see it to believe it. It's probably the funniest thing I've seen in a while. But hey, the sequence was supposed to be lighthearted, so why be critical?

I beseech you: go see this film whenever you can. This film earns 5 out of 5 stars. It's endearing; it's heartfelt; it's touching; it's joyful and funny; it's Disney at its finest, bringing back some of the simplicity from Disney animations in the 50s and 60s while also putting in the more mature themes that made the Disney Renaissance loved by all. Take your families to go see it--the younger ones may be bored, but there's nothing here that I don't think a 10 year old couldn't see. I'd be highly surprised if this film doesn't at least get nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars. In fact, this is one of only two films I've seen in theaters where the audience clapped at the end. The audience loved the film so much that many didn't move once the credits started rolling on opening night--and you won't want to either, as Hancock has inserted a nice, extended bit halfway through the credits.

I'll need to see the movie another time before I can say it's one of the best films of all time, but do know that you are doing yourself a disservice if you miss out on this one before it leaves theaters. Enjoy the Disney magic once again, and leave the theater smiling. So whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

NEW MOVIE: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug Review

We began this journey with a fellowship of a ring, then conquered two towers to await the return of the king on an unexpected journey. Now we witness the desolation...made by Smaug-- in the newest movie straight from New Zealand, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. But after five movies, does Peter Jackson still have that "precious" touch? Here's my review!

In case you haven't been around on the Earth lately, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is the sequel to last year's An Unexpected Journey and is the fifth incarnation in Peter Jackson's Middle-Earth series, the Hobbit films serving as prequels to The Lord of the Rings. The Hobbit films also serve as a three-part adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien's 300-some-page book of the same name. As you can guess, purists are a bit miffed that The Hobbit is being stretched out so wide. But even though The Hobbit is one of my favorite novels, I still enjoy these movies without faithfulness to the novel being a big problem.

The Desolation of Smaug picks up right where An Unexpected Journey left off as the eponymous Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, Sherlock, The World's End), wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen, The Lord of the Rings, X-Men), and the thirteen dwarves flee from orcs and wolves to reach Erebor and reclaim their treasure. What awaits in Erebor? Why, nothing but the massive fire-breathing dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch, Sherlock, Star Trek Into Darkness)! However, the road to Erebor is not simple, as they run into several more obstacles along the way, opening the way for wood-elves Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly, Lost, The Hurt Locker) and Legolas (Orlando Bloom, The Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean) to begin their adventures.

I had but a few complaints with this film, but first, let's reflect on some of the pros of this film. Desolation of Smaug is much better paced than An Unexpected Journey and is much less boring (a point I did not emphasize in my original review). Since there was no true resolution to An Unexpected Journey, the heat is still on, and Jackson makes that very clear in the enemy orcs' early appearances, and the much-talked about barrel sequence is no exception. A constantly exciting ride, it is rightfully the highlight of the film. Benedict Cumberbatch voices Smaug to sinister perfection and is almost unrecognizable in his voice performance. His verbal showdown with Bilbo, which we got a glimpse of in one of the trailers, had me smiling because it was so good. Even though Smaug's dialogue is digitally altered, you can still pick out the slight emotions and menacing articulation in his words, making the character of Smaug a prominent and fearsome force. And even though Gollum is absent in this film, Martin Freeman's nuances with Bilbo's character, especially when it's concerning his new Ring, is so great to see. This film is very much an action piece, but one of these scenes towards the beginning where we see this side of Freeman's Bilbo grounds the film on an emotional level and a level that works with connecting the mythology.

A lot of people, as I said before, are very unhappy with the many additions that Jackson added in order to tie in with The Lord of the Rings. If I'm being quite honest, it's these additions that I love most. The last Dol Goldur sequence (Dol Goldur is where an ominous Necromancer resides), although lacking slightly in the CG department, was the part of the film that had me smiling them most--it was epic! When I own the film next year, that will still be my favorite part. I can't stop thinking about that sequence; I wish I could nerd out in front of you all, but doing so would ruin much of the fun and potential surprise in the film, and I won't do so here. Also, Jackson's inserted the character of Legolas from The Lord of the Rings films and added the new character (not in any of the books) Tauriel. Their additions will definitely be the deciding factor of whether people liked the movie or hated it. Here's my view: Their characters are welcome additions, as they are the most exciting parts. I like the tie-ins to The Lord of the Rings, so I like how they're handled--if Peter Jackson shoehorned them in there, but no attempt to make it just, I would be like Catching Fire fans when narration wasn't in the movie. The only thing I'm unsure about is an added love triangle, which I believe, at face value, is supposed to mirror the Aragorn-Eowyn-Arwen love triangle from The Lord of the Rings. It's completely original to the films, but I'm not sure if it works--YET! I feel my complaints with it will be addressed in the sequel The Hobbit: There and Back Again, so as for now, I have no opinion. I'll just warn you that if you're a Tolkien purist, you may want to make a bonfire and burn every reel of film that exists of this film...thank God it's digital!

Now for the not-so-great. Halfway through the film, the traveling gang sans Gandalf make their way to Lake-town where Bard the Bowman resides. I felt that this was the worst part of the film, bar none. In short, most of this section felt very goofy and cartoony, with Stephen Fry, who I very much liked as Mycroft Holmes in Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows, playing an over-the-top caricature of Louis XIV of France as the Master of Lake-town, with a lackey to match. I don't remember if a part of this section was in the book, but I just thought it clashed with the more serious tone the rest of the series had brought on. Speaking of clashing, it's around this point where Thorin becomes a really big jerk (to put it lightly), more so than he was in the novel. In the novel, he was arrogant; in here, he coldly drops the expendable few. I found this jarring and that its only usefulness was to tie-in with the added material; I didn't find it necessary. Also, the dialogue in this film just isn't that great--or audible. Somehow when this was being edited, it was decided that the dialogue be very hard to hear, and after 10 or 15 minutes, I just gave up on trying to pay attention to it. That's a technical nitpick, but An Unexpected Journey had a similar problem on repeat viewings. Although it couldn't hurt to make an action movie a tad bit louder, could it? Regardless, the dialogue is mostly there to move the action, rather than the story, along. There's not many memorable lines here, at least that I can recall. In The Lord of the Rings, you have Frodo's monologue about Samwise Gamgee being the most important character should their adventures to Mordor be written in a book, or "My friends, you bow to no one," in The Return of the King, or even Bilbo's monologue to Thorin Oakenshield in An Unexpected Journey about the little hobbit with a home helping the dwarves reclaim the one they no longer have. Desolation has few of these, and it's kind of disappointing. Desolation is a visual adventure, not an emotional one with sentiment. Then again, it's not supposed to be. Desolation's purpose is to prepare for The Lord of the Rings and There and Back Again through plot and visual cues--an action movie to prepare us for the epic scope of the finale. In that, it's job is done well. Another thing to note is that, like it's predecessor, Desolation lacks a definitive resolution--in fact, it's a cliffhanger much in the vein of The Empire Strikes Back. Because I knew from the start that this was going to be three films, I didn't mind it--I walked out eager for the finale. However, every time I see one of these movies, there is a resounding groan amongst audience members who felt cheated because it ends on a cliffhanger where the stakes are highest. If you go into this knowing of the split, you'll probably feel less ticked. Just some helpful advice from your good old friend here.

The barrel sequence is rightfully the highlight of this film.

So in the end, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug does exceed its predecessor in many respects--pacing, score, nuances, and tie-ins-- but a few things keep it from being as great as The Lord of the Rings. Because of that, I'll give The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug the same score I gave its predecessor: 4 out of 5 stars. Don't be mistaken: I enjoyed Desolation more; from a scoring aspect, however, it was about the same. For example: Driving Miss Daisy and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade are two of my favorite films, and I would give them both 5 stars. That said, I like Indy just a little bit more than Daisy, even though it's the same score.

So have you seen Desolation, and what did you think of it? Are you a Middle-Earth kind of guy (or gal)? Do you enjoy these kinds of movies? Whatever you have to say about me or the movies, comment below!

As a side note that doesn't affect the score: due to certain circumstances, I saw this 2.5-hour film as a 3D showing. Is it worth it? A few sequences benefit from the 3D, like the barrel sequence, some of the elf fights, and the Mirkwood scene, but otherwise, you won't get that pop-out effect that you would typically expect in a 3D movie. The 3D also takes a lot of getting used to. During the prologue, I was worried that I would end up with a headache due to the live-action 3D. I got through it, and it didn't particularly bother me, but it was a bit of sensory overload. Personally, I prefer the brighter color scheme in The Hobbit movies, and you won't get much of that if you see it in 3D. Personally, I would see The Hobbit the same way you saw The Lord of the Rings--in 2D, although you may enjoy seeing it in IMAX--a much larger, and louder, screen. That's just my two-cents.

Because I feel I have to elaborate a bit on some of the tie-in features, below is a SPOILER HEAVY section for Desolation of Smaug. Feel free to read and discuss, but know that I warned you ahead of time.

One of my biggest uncertainties with The Hobbit is the addition of the love triangle between Legolas, Tauriel, and the dwarf Kili--this was not in the book. However, I feel that in the end, Jackson will use this love triangle to shape Legolas's character for The Lord of the Rings. How so? In Desolation, Legolas is extremely aggressive towards dwarves, even mocking a picture of his future partner Gimli, but in The Lord of the Rings, he treats Gimli as a blood brother. Why the change? I feel that Jackson is going to use Tauriel as a catalyst to shape Legolas as a compassionate character--it's possible for an elf to even love a dwarf. There are no boundaries that need to be set if united we stand. I trust Jackson, and it's sequences like Gandalf the Grey's light versus Necromancer Sauron's darkness in Dol Goldur that give me faith. It's these uncertainties that many critics and audiences are receiving as negatives, though I think Jackson is confident enough in his work to leave this open ends in a move that requires a lot of cajones--splitting a small book into three parts. When it's all said and done, I feel that we will look back at these movies, though they are not perfect, and recognize the vision, to make us see this trilogy as near-equal to The Lord of the Rings.

Trailer Park 6: Paranormal Activity: The Marked Ones

While Trailer Park's changed a bit, click here for the basic rundown and a directory of past installments!

 

In the past week or so, Paramount Pictures released the trailer to the new Paranormal Activity spinoff film, The Marked Ones. And since it's that Halloween season again, I thought I would talk about it rather than, you know, talk about something amazing like The Twilight Zone or The Sixth Sense. Priorities.

Now I will establish this up front: I don't watch horror movies. I enjoy a good thriller, but I'm not a huge fan of gratuitous blood and jump scares. That said, I thoroughly enjoyed The Sixth Sense and The Birds, but I can't tell you the next time I'll watch either of them again. Anyway, jumping off the found footage style of The Blair Witch Project, Oren Peli created a low-budget, very entertaining (according to audiences) horror film. Since then, it's become a widespread thing and now we get a new one for next year...kind of.

The first time I watched this trailer, I didn't feel it. Second time I watched it, still wasn't scared. The trailer starts off in a Latino town, a party, and an old lady dies. And of course, our band of scallywags decide that they should break into her house, because that's the logical thing to do. I mean, it's like you knew her! Note the sarcasm. Anyway, they walk in, find out she was stalking him, and our main amigo wakes up the next morning with a strange mark on his arm. This is where I feel the movie's going to drag.

For the next thirty or forty minutes of the movie, I feel, are just going to be them researching the cause of the markings and finding nothing. None of that will be interesting, I guarantee. People came for a horror movie and be legitimately scared, but instead they see a man go super saiyan on a couple of gang members. That won't be scary at all, and it is likely used only as a special effects distraction from the real scares. What the first films succeeded in was their suspense and not knowing when or how something was going to happen. Director/writer Christopher Landon doesn't seem to understand, substituting suspense and shocking resolution for predictable scares and creepy imagery. Even the lady talking to Jesse (the main amigo)'s amiga knows how everything is going to pan out. Maybe if people stop filming every strange thing that happens to them, the poltergeist will leave-- just a thought. But I guess then Paranormal Activity 5 can't take place across Vine, so I guess we'll have to sit through it. All in all, I'm going to say this trailer FISHTAILED. Paranormal Activity 4 failed to entertain most fans, and I don't see this spinoff bringing them back for more.


So what say you? Are you going to see this when it comes to town in January? Or are you going to stick with some older favorites? Which Paranormal Activity is your favorite? Comment below, and let me know!

Quick Reviews

Since my schedule has kept me from posting more on here, I want to make up for that with a few brief reviews on certain films I've seen recently. I do hope to write some more on here, including some critic spotlights and a new Trailer Park on the new Paranormal Activity trailer, but until that time comes, hopefully these are enough to hold us over. Enjoy!
 
Super 8: Clearly a tribute to the great director Steven Spielberg, Super 8 exceeds in its nostalgic feel and an inspiration for young filmmakers. The tone is easily the strongest part, blending Jurassic Park with E.T, but the performances by the young actors are phenomenal. The finale, however, is not as stirring as the rest of the film, but Michael Giacchino's beautiful score still makes it an amazing moment in the film. All in all, if Star Wars Episode VII is anything like this, Star Wars fans have absolutely nothing to fear. 3.5/5 Stars

The Letter Writer: Written and directed by Christian Vuissa, The Letter Writer means well in its message that every word should be something to build people up, but severe character inconsistensies, unresolved plotlines, and a generally weak screenplay overshadow mostly beautiful cinematography (especially for a TV movie) and flawless performances by Bernie Diamond (in his final film appearance before his death) and Stella McCormas. One particular sequence that stood out as poorly done is where lead character Maggy (played by Aley Underwood) faces unfortunate events that come out of the blue which are resolved in about ten minutes. People have come out saying they cried and were emotionally affected, so either I have no heart or the movie was too obvious in what it was trying to do to affect me. Hopefully, it's the latter. 2.5/5 Stars

The Encounter: Directed by David A. R. White, the film means well, but shoddy filmmaking-- overuse of unnecessary shaky cam, poor screenwriting, awkward camera angles, and hit-or-miss acting--make a film that could have been used to easily reach non-Christians an embarrassment. The only thing saving this film from itself is an extremely dedicated performance from Bruce Marchiano, once again playing Jesus in a string of PureFlix Entertainment films, and his chemistry with former WCW champ "Sting" Borden, but not even that is given enough screen time. Parts are really good, like the verbal showdown between Marchiano and Sting, but White's inability to accentuate these sequences leave the film as, overall, extremely lackluster. 1.5/5 Stars

Peter Pan: One of Disney's classics, it's surprising that today's animators don't look back at the simplicity of these older cartoons. Peter Pan is a short, 70-minute adventure of Wendy, her brothers, and Peter Pan and the Lost Boys, as they explore the world of Neverland, running into mermaids, Indians, and Captain Hook and his pirate crew. Full of slapstick humor and an equal amount of heart, Peter Pan is apt to please everybody. Another thing to note is that sequence of the film ("What Makes the Red Man Red?") that, although fun, may offend some viewers for its stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. All that aside, this film is beautifully animated with some great musical numbers, and, considering that the film is 60 years old, the film still holds up as well as Snow White, and entertains as much as the films in the Disney Renaissance. 4/5 Stars