2012: The Year in Film: "The Hobbit" Review

Peter Jackson's Lord of the Rings Trilogy is quite simply one of the supreme achievements in the history of film.  He took an epic book series beloved by millions worldwide and made an equally momentous series of films that change enough to be unique while retaining what made the books so influential and popular in the first place.  The definitive directors' extended cuts of the first three films are unbelievably epic and quite possibly the greatest trilogy in the history of film.  (That's a discussion for another day...)  The final film absolutely deserved all of the love heaped on it by the academy back in 2004.  The popularity and quality of those films made the transition of Tolkien's earlier children's book featuring some of the same characters and a familiar world a near certainty and much of the last decade has been spent in sorting out the details.  First Guillermo Del Toro was attached, which offered intriguing possibilities as Del Toro is unquestionably a master at creating wonder and creatures.  Alas, Del Toro had to step aside due to delays and conflicts, but luckily the man behind the LOTR trilogy stepped in so we were promised a Hobbit that would feel very familiar and potentially (ultimately) a film series that would have a very cohesive feel.  So how is it?

Unlike the Lord of the Rings books, I've actually read the Hobbit (back in Jr. High and again this week) so I have a different perspective than I did going into those films.  With that being said, I was initially very, very concerned when Warner Bros. announced that the planned two-part Hobbit movies were to be expanded to a trilogy.  After all, the Hobbit is a 300 page novel written for middle and high school aged readers.. what could possibly be so expansive to justify 3 nearly 3 hour films, an identical treatment that the 1300 pages of Lord of the Rings received?  After seeing the film and re-reading the book I can say that the treatment is warranted.  The book is quite limited in scope, focused pretty exclusively on Bilbo, and quite a lot happens that's either off the page or simply glossed over because Bilbo is hungry or whatever.  So I stand corrected.

"The Hobbit" is a tale of an adventure.  A quite unexpected one at that.  If you're familiar with the Lord of the Rings films (and honestly, it's 2012, how are you not?), you're familiar with the world and many of the players.  Some 60 years prior to the events in Lord of the Rings Gandalf (he's gray, it's the past) recruits an unwitting Bilbo Baggins (Frodo's uncle..) on a quest with a band of Dwarves to retake their home, lost some century prior.  The road is long and hard and poses many challenges, but Bilbo enlists as the troop's "burglar" despite himself.  Along the way the group faces goblins and orcs and wargs and meets some familiar faces.  It's Tolkien.  Nothing's a straight line and the journey's half the fun.

The Good: Jackson doesn't miss a step.  The world and the settings and the shots all feel like a continuation of the earlier LOTR flicks, and this is a definite good thing.  It's good to be back in Middle Earth and he spends quite a bit of time relishing in the familiar sights and sounds of the Shire, Rivendell and the like.  Casting Martin Freeman was a tour de force.  Most familiar to me from the BBC's brilliant Sherlock and "Hot Fuzz" the experienced British actor captures the charm and reluctance of a much younger Bilbo Baggins perfectly.  Ian McKellan is, of course, great as Gandalf, and doesn't miss a step returning to the more jovial "gray" version of the character from the first film.  Richard Armitage as Thorin is a particular bright-spot.  Andy Serkis and Gollum... well, you already know, but it's simply a joy to watch.  Gollum has a depressing charm that makes a somewhat despicable character eminently watchable.  The casting and interaction of the characters on the whole was great.  This is a motley crew and Jackson doesn't do them any disservice by making them parallel the much more capable Fellowship from the LOTR films. These people are a band that is in far over their heads, quite relying on Gandalf and his knowledge and expertise to see them through and Jackson and the script use this quality as a source of humor repeatedly.  On the whole this film is much more light hearted than the LOTR films, as is befitting an adaptation of a children's novel.  The action sequences are often great.  The LOTR films feature some of the most impressive and effective epic action scenes in all of cinema, and the Hobbit proudly carries on that tradition.  Despite the long run-time, there isn't much that feels superfluous, and that's a credit to the filmmakers and the source material that so much can be fleshed out of a short novel.


The Bad: there isn't a whole lot of bad.  Most noticeable to me were two things: 1.) the opening scene tried too hard to tie directly in to LOTR and 2.) an over-reliance on CGI in this newer flick.  Jackson didn't go full George Lucas on us, but where the LOTR flicks used extras and make up for many of the effects, here there are many sequences, creatures and the like are fully CGI which can be distracting if you're familiar with the much more real-feeling LOTR films.  Also, not that the film is over-long, but this feels like it's an extended cut in and of itself.. not a problem for me, but if you aren't THAT into Tolkien's world, it could be tedious.  There's an extended scene with a non-Gandalf wizard in the forest that makes little sense except as set-up for something that's quite a ways off that feels utterly superfluous.  In addition, there are a number of falls/events/injuries where people/dwarves/hobbits fall literally hundreds of feet onto rocks without dying or suffering major wounds that rather annoyed me.  But these are minor qualms with a 3 hour movie and in no way cheapen the achievement.

On the whole, this is a worthwhile addition to the universe of the LOTR films.  Freeman, McKellan, Armitage and Gollum make it worth watching for the performances alone.  The film successfully (except for the opening scene/Frodo cameo) ties into LOTR without being heavy-handed about it, and enhances a universe we already know and love.  Consider the Star Wars prequels - this is no easy feat, although admittedly easier when you're dealing with a known and loved pre-existing property than when inventing a prequel from whole cloth - still, there's a lot that could have gone wrong here, and considering very little did?  Success.  Weaker, on the whole, than any of the LOTR films, but not exceedingly so, the Hobbit is visually masterful, very well acted, and overall a very good film.

8/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Flight" Review

Robert Zemeckis is a pretty damn acclaimed and esteemed director, if he has a tendency to be overly broad in ways that Spielberg wouldn't even have dreamed.  Still, when you cut your teeth doing things like the Back to the Future movies, Forrest Gump and Castaway before spending a decade revolutionizing stop-motion animation, your return to live action will be cause for attention.  Throw in the fact that Denzel Washington will be starring in an obvious awards bait performance... and Flight was a flick that I immediately took notice of from the time the first trailer hit the interwebs.  Denzel is an interesting case for me.. because on the one hand there's no doubt that he's a charming, charismatic and incredibly talented actor, but he also is pretty much always just Denzel.  He's always playing shades of the same character, which is why I can't remember a single one of his character's names right off, despite enjoying many of his movies.  He's either mad Denzel, or wise Denzel, or badass Denzel or Coach Denzel or drunk Denzel or insert an adjective here.  He's from the George Clooney school of acting, which is why I'll never argue that Denzel is a "great" actor, despite the fact that he probably is.  So how is Flight?  Let's check it out.

Flight features airline captain Whip Whitaker, a gifted pilot who also has some serious personal problems.  He's driven most of his friends and family away and spends his nights partying way too hard and his days in a drunken haze.  One fateful morning something causes the plane he's piloting on a hangover into a steep dive and he's forced to pull a rabbit out of his hat to save the lives of just about everyone on board.  He finds himself at the center of a media firestorm as the NTSB uncovers some troubling facts about that fateful flight.

The Good: Denzel turns in a tremendous performance.  Despite the fact that Whip doesn't have a lot of positive attributes, you can't help but root for the guy, even has he wallows farther and farther into a pit of addiction, self-despair and self-destruction.  He's incredibly charming and charismatic in a role that I'm not sure very many other actors could have pulled off.  The plot flows pretty smoothly and isn't what you'd expect either from the trailer or from a typical major motion picture featuring such A-list talent.   Bruce Greenwood and John Goodman also turn in strong supporting performances but make no mistake, this is the Denzel show. Don Cheadle turns in an effective and understanded performance as an attorney for the pilot's union as well.   If this wasn't such a strong year for movies in general and male leading performances in specific, I'd say Denzel had a really good shot at Best Actor.  It also gives a brutal, honest look at alcoholism that goes right up there with the great cinematic depictions of the disease like Leaving Las Vegas. 
The Bad: when it comes down to it, the flick is just too damn broad and on point to truly be effective. There are some questionable music choices, let's just say it isn't exactly original to play Velvet Underground while someone is shooting heroin. If someone is blasting rails and pounding entire bottles of liquor, playing The Rolling Stones is just way too safe of a move. Plus, the resolution is just too damn "Hallmark-ey" to be a great movie. Everyone knows that alcoholism and addiction are bad.. ideally there should be more to the theme of a memorable flick than that. And between Jenny in Forrest Gump and Nicole here, I think it's safe to say that Zemeckis has a junkie with a heart of gold in his past. In all, this is a solid, watchable, entertaining flick with an outstanding performance from a true A-lister at the top of his game at the center. Ultimately it's well worth watching but simply too broad, too simplistic and too paint-by-numbers to add anything "great" to movies. Well worth a watch, but ultimately short of greatness, or even being truly memorable. 7/10.

Mailbag V: Live Free or Mailbag Harder: Upton girl?

 B.K. Mila Kunis or Kate Upton...and we ain't talking marriage.

Let's be honest here, you can't REALLY go wrong with either choice here.  You're either going to end up with an incredibly beautiful woman... or an incredibly beautiful woman, so first let's celebrate your great fortune at living in a dreamworld.  Ok, now that that's out of the way, there are pro's and cons to each of these two goddesses.  Kate Upton, physically, is unbelievable.  BUT, I've heard interviews with her and she sounds like a complete and utter dolt.  She IS 20 years old, so I suppose that's not entirely her fault.. but she's an idiot.  Seems like a great time and undeniably beautiful, though.  Mila Kunis, on the other hand, is 29, was born in Ukraine, and seems like a talented, funny, charming gal in pretty much everything I've ever seen or read on her.  On the other hand, she DID date grown up zombie Macaulay Culkin for the better part of the decade, certainly a cause for concern.  With all that being said - considering that the question itself specified that we weren't talking who would be cooler to hang out with, I'm going with Kate Upton.  Sorry, Mila, I hope you don't hold it against me, but a simple google image search will solve this quandary for you...

D.O. Which was your favorite Police Academy and why?

After doing a little bit of research, I don't believe I've seen all of the Police Academy films.  I've seen "Mission to Moscow", but I have no recollection of "Assignment Miami Beach" or "City Under Siege", which are evidently Police Academy 5 and 6.  As such, my answer will be incomplete, but given that Police Academy 5 has a 3.8 on IMDB and PA 6 a 3.6, it doesn't sound like I'm missing a whole hell of a lot.  With that caveat, I'd have to say that the original Police Academy is the one I most enjoy.  It fits into the zany world of 80's comedies where these preposterous characters took on "the man" and came out on top in their own crazy way that seems to be the foundation of basically every comedy made from 1980-1990.  It's silly, it's stupid, it makes no sense, it falls smack in the middle of when Steve Guttenberg was somehow a movie star, but it's a fun time.  Police Academy 1 it is.

G.H. Which would you rather have between only being able to converse with others in song or get gushing nose bleeds every time you have sex?  Only you are singing.  No one else is involved, just  you.  And the nose bleeds start right before climax... you cannot plan or account for them in any way.

Dude, this is unarguably an awful choice.  How did you come up with this?  I think, unfortunately and tragically for that part of my life, I'll have to choose the nosebleeds during sex.  Obviously that would put a damper on your sex life, but conversing in song would put a damper on everything, including sex.  I feel like you could plan for the nosebleeds by stuffing up your nose pre-coitus... but being able to converse ONLY in song while the world goes on normally around you?  Might as well move to the woods now, weirdo, because everyone's going to hate you.  Nosebleeds during sex it is... maybe I'd join some chaste order of monks or something.

B.K. Who would you rather have as your QB at OSU, TP or Braxton? NFL need not apply. 

I'm going to have to go with Braxton.  Each player had pluses and minuses, but I think Braxton's combination of arm strength and elusiveness in the open field (he's a sophomore clap clap clap clap clap) gives him the edge.  Pryor was a great improvisational Quarterback capable of breaking tackles in the pocket and taking on tacklers in the open field.  However, he often was inaccurate with his throws and made some poor decisions.  Braxton is pretty good with the ball, but tends to hold onto the ball far too long trying to make every play into a big play rather than taking what the defense gives him.  Given Braxton's 2012 soph. season (better than anything Pryor put up) with a turd sandwich at WR, I'm going to take Brax.  Even if he over dramatizes any injuries by pretending to be dead before re-entering the game with no ill effects.

D.O. which boxer did it take you the longest to figure out the pattern for on Mike Tyson's Punchout?  

I always felt like Mr. Sandman was even harder than Tyson himself... mainly because he takes some work and patience to beat and you can't just pound away at him until he opens up the body.  Don't go for the knockout too early or Mr. Sandman will eff you up.

J.H. At what age can a man most easily recover or rebound from a hangover? He feels like all hell at age eighteen, and he feels quite similar around age thirty. But somewhere in between he could brush it off and abuse his body for days on end with seemingly zero consequences. I'm not really sure how to best frame this question, but I think you know what I'm talking about and I'd love to hear your thoughts

From thinking back over the foggy haze of a solid 12 year span of copious alcohol consumption, I think the answer is age 20-21.  At that age you've got several years of drinking experience in, but your body has likely not physically recoiled from the horrors you've inflicted on it by rejecting cheap liquors outright.  (If I even smell Lady Bligh, Korski or El Toro...)  Early on in your drinking career when you have no tolerance, it's not so much a hangover as it is still being drunk and not knowing how to adequately cope with such things.  By age 20, you've had a few years of college life, but your body is still durable and young enough to bounce back relatively unscathed from extended abuse.  This is the same age that you're able to go jog without stretching, play basketball for no reason and be able to walk the next day, and similarly inflict physical abuse on your body with an extremely short bounce-back time.  By the time you're in your mid-20's, your body has begun the downward spiral where regular life takes its toll, let alone heavy drinking, and it's just downhill from there.  I vote the 20ish month period from your 20th birthday until nearly your 22nd, the "Goldilocks Zone" of hangover avoidance where your body has adjusted well enough to the effects of alcohol but not yet begun its slow and inexorable decline.

AM: In the spirit of this excellent video from the 2011 Emmy's: 



What is your dream television character crossover?  What character, if introduced to a current or past show as the character they played on another show, would have the most awesome impact, either from a comedic or dramatic standpoint. 

For example, put Tom Havingford on Game of Thrones and he's likely beheaded in minutes.  Not effective.  Put Ron Swanson on LOST and a) he'd go all Rose and Bernard and go live alone in the jungle and b) he would spend half his time telling people how full of shit they were.  So kind of one note.  

So who is it?  Want to see Omar cross paths with Heisenberg?  Jerry Seinfeld on Homeland?  Pierce Hawthorne on the Cosby Show?  THE WORLD IS YOUR OYSTER, SIR.

I have done a lot of thinking on this over the last week or so while limping through this poor effort of a mailbag.  A LOT.  Like, significantly more than I've thought about actually important and meaningful things.  So know that my answer doesn't come from a flippant place.  My answer for which character I'd like to see interjected onto another show is Pilot Walter White onto Pilot LOST.  Here's why.  Walter White is a man of great determination, skill, ingenuity and fortitude, who also happens to be a self-obsessed, arrogant SOB. Aka, a great addition to the Season One LOST crew.  Imagine someone with Locke's determination but scientist skills.  (And not like Jack, either, where he's supposedly a skilled surgeon but is also an idiot)  He'd be able to greatly improve the life of the survivors - building a better radio, hacking Dharma tech, better explosives, medicines, a better raft, etc. - while also descending into his tyrannical, self-obsessed self as he became more and more confident and relied-upon by the other survivors.  Rather than Jack vs Locke, we'd have Jack vs. Locke vs. Walter, with Walter being the most competent, dangerous, brilliant and manipulative of the three.  Once the realities of the island and the Others sunk in, no one would be more brutally efficient and dangerous than Walter White.  What would be amazing is him charming the other survivors only to lead them into darkness by totally lacking Jack and Locke's moral compass.  So awesome.  MAKE THIS HAPPEN, LINDELOF.