Movies of 2014, Fantasy

Fantasy Movies

            First I will list a few movies that fit into this bandwidth that I haven't seen just to give a more complete look at what I have and have not covered, mostly because I have only 3 entries here and there were more out there to watch.  "Winter's Tale," widely considered one of the worst movies released all year I wanted to see it to be disappointed in how it probably was not as bad as people say; "How to Train Your Dragon 2," I actually want to see the first one before seeing this one, it looks like something I would love; "Maleficent," I have no real desire to watch this; "Horns," I do not even know if this came out anywhere, much like "The Lady in Black" it looks to be a Danny Radcliffe movie I will not enjoy; and "Exodus: Gods and Kings" I have no trouble appreciating Biblical stories as a sort of mythology, but this particular story has been done definatively twice before so why again, how about a movie of Joshua taking over Jericho?  And on to the main events.

"Noah"

            While "Exodus" has had definitive telling in the past Noah hasn't and for a big release this is a very challenging presentation of the material.  The hero is driven mad with religious fervor, a world so corrupt and failing that its destruction does not seem like an over reaction, non-traditional portrayals of esoteric material, and a favorable depiction of evolution and environmentalism.  The idea that dominion over nature means stewardship rather than a right to exploit is actually a good counter argument to a lot of drill-baby-drill perspectives held by religious people.

            The movie is far from perfect, it is boring, there are clear instances of a story break (making it to the mountain of Methuselah, escaping the flood on the ark, and ultimately the movies actual ending on dry land), maybe my patience with stories being told in multiple parts has made me more critical of epics like this being told in a single installment.  I can also see this movie as being too dark or violent for people who are expecting a biblical story for the family, though I do not think that a planetary holocaust should be your first choice in that venue.

Overall: 6/10 

God awful movie poster.

"300: Rise of an Empire"

            This is an odd one, and I am glad that Frank Miller had very little creative input on the subject.  While the original "300" was a fun movie about a tiny nation trying to rally against a larger empire to secure their way of life dedicated to reason... Let's be clear, it is propaganda.  The glorious white people with their sculpted abs, brilliant minds, and bloodlines pure of the deformities of other cultures fighting against the multi-ethnic force who in real life expressly forbid slavery while the Spartans had the largest slave population in all of Greece.  Frank Miller is a deplorable racist, and while his artistic contributions to comic books are begrudgingly acknowledged we should all take a step back and look at how he has gone crazy and all of his work has had undercurrents of racism and misogyny, because "300: Rise of an Empire" kind of does take a step back and look at how complex things were.

            The Spartans are looked at as violent but useful to the more tactical Greeks, and the Greek people are seen (rightly) as villains in need of conquest by the Persians.  Eva Green's character was abused in Greek society and saved by the Persians, her hate makes sense.  Things are messy and it is cool to see that underlined in a sequel to one of the most incorrectly black and white morality films ever made.

            Much like Noah there are lots of issues.  The timeline is all over the place, unlike in the first where the strange (anachronistic) technology of the Persians are defeated in montage they are the center piece of the film and if goofy steam punk battle is not your thing then this will be boring, Eva Green is good but many might object to how sexually and literally aggressive she is considering the historical figure she portrays was cautious and levelheaded, one of the few Persian captains that was not taken in by the Athenian naval trap that broke the Persian campaign.  It is a strange movie, and years too late to be an effective follow up (much like "Sin City 2: A Dame to Kill For" which also came out this year, and is also a stylized Frank Miller story with a topless sexually aggressive Eva Green as the star).

Overall: 6/10 

A decent poster in which it is about the movie, not a particular actor in it.

"The Hobbit: the Battle of Five Armies"

            The best of the Hobbit movies, so much so that it make s me like the others less.  The movie has focus as the plot threads and characters shown in the previous movies all start moving toward the ultimate goal of controlling the golden horde beneath the Lonely Mountain.  All of the principle characters, Bilbo, Gandalf, Thorin, and Legolas get their moments to shine (I still consider the addition of the elves to be beneficial to the story).  The monsters are inventive and cool, the various steeds of the heroes are cool, the armor, the ruins, nearly all of the visuals work (yeah the CGI gets a bit much here and there but not as noticeably as the last one).  The heroic sacrifices are good (not perfect, I was expecting Thorin's final action in the story to be a bigger move), and the added weight of character death makes them movie hit harder.  The Elves are as always cool and work perfectly, they are both generous, but have their own desires.

            There are of course downsides, as I mentioned before Thorin's final battle while fine could have been better, there is a scene in which the party of 13 dwarves storms out of the mountain and rallies the dwarf army that is losing ground... That makes no sense to me as they are not the Avengers, they are just 13 guys, some of which are not warriors, but it turns the tide.  Humans are woefully out gunned and rather than cleverly beating back the bad guys they mostly just keep fighting and inexplicably not dying.  There are sections in which a lot of proper nouns are thrown around.

            I would also like to maintain that these movies should have been called "Middle Earth" not "The Hobbit", and should have been marketed differently.  Peter Jackson should have said, "We are going to use 'The Hobbit' as a framing device, but since this will likely be the last movies set in this universe for this generation of filmmakers, I saw it as both fun and necessary to explore other aspects of the world. Lots of characters exist, and a lot of magic, action, and world is there.  If I don't put those things into this movie, then it won't fit in anywhere.  Some people have talked about 'The Silmarillion' and I do not think it would work, better to take what we have and put it in here where we can and enjoy as much of the universe as possible with this story as a backbone."  But they didn't do that and so we have people complaining that there isn't enough story to fill three movies even though these movies are packed with content.

7/10

 

This poster rides the line, it shows what the movie is about, but clearly puts a focus on the various characters rather than the world of Middle Earth, the true star of the movie.

Movies of 2013, Fantasy, pt1, Hobbit

Fantasy

The Hobbit: Desolation of Smaug, or "They really should have changed more things rather than just adding stuff"

Overall: 7/10

I would just like to note that the amount of gold in this movie is hundreds of times the amount of gold found in all of the real Earth combined, and would make for a totally unworkable standard for money.

            I like this movie.  Just to get that sentiment out of the way.  It is fun, moves at a good pace, has a lot of visual variety, ice, forest, dungeon, mountains of gold, cliffs... It is beautiful.  The costumes, sets, makeup, and visual effects are all amazing emerging you in a massive world of magic, legend, and big ideas.  All that being said I am going to go against the popular opinion on this film and say, "they didn't change enough."

            "The Hobbit" is a short, comedic book mostly aimed at a young audience.  It serves as a simple jumping off point for the events of "Lord of the Rings" which had a much (much, much, much) more developed narrative with more description and bigger climax.  But a movie is not a book.  In the book most of the Dwarves are blink-and-you'll-miss "characters".  Often they are one note jokes that are interchangeable.  Thorin and his quest for his gem are background, my brother read the book and didn't even know that in the climactic final War of Five Armies that more than one dwarf died, that is how little an impact they made.  But in the movie that doesn't really work.

            Having more than a dozen "characters" running through dangerous situations without any of them dying undercuts the threat (again I am saying "characters" sarcastically because while each has their own look they don't all get lines or development, I'm a nerd and can't name them all).  In the first film they are taken hostage by Trolls, and run through a goblin city squaring off against thousands of potential opponents before confronting the Orcs who have been hunting them all movie.  Logically someone should have died.  Pick one of the dwarves who is most visually engaging and has had a lot of lines (I would have picked Dwalin... Very few people will know who that is without a picture... So here is a picture.)

Also, a noble sacrifice would help to inform the audience as to why Gandalf thinks the Dwarves are worth helping.  It shows them to be commendable in courage, and even worth imitation.

            Dwalin was the first dwarf to show up in the movie, he is the most warrior like of those present, he has numerous lines, and thanks to his tattoos he is very visually memorable... He should have died heroically fighting with the albino orc.  Think about it, the orcs have them all cornered on trees, on a cliff.  Gandalf has called for help to the eagles but unless someone buys time the Dwarves won't be able to escape, one of the Dwarves jumps down from the tree and stands fast.  Gandalf looks apprehensive, Thorin knows that Dwalin is the one to do it and orders him to save them (showing he can make tough leadership decisions) and Dwalin yells at the Dwarves, "YOU SHALL NOT PASS."  And fights.  And dies.  Much like Gandalf and Boromir in "Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring".  It shows that this quest is dangerous, and that people will die while on it.  It changes from the book, but the book was a simple story for kids, the movie has to do things differently to work better.

            All of that was from the first "Hobbit" so let me point to an instance in this movie which was both good and bad.

            Spoiler time discussion: Not one damn dwarf dies fighting Smaug.  The biggest, most powerful being in the whole world, not one dwarf dies during the whole fight.  Smaug goes from huge, looming threat (beautiful to look on, and very tense when interacting with Bilbo) and is downgraded minute by minute as he fails to kill any of the dwarves in his lair.  THIS IS BULLSHIT.  You are de-balling the character.  Kill some dwarves.  Seriously, Bifur, Bofur, and Bombur should have all bitten it.  Each killed fulfilling part of the Dwarves' attack against Smaug.  As is the movie's climax is an incredible let down.

            I do like that they made Bard an actual character, and that Lake Town was a real place with people, politics, and style all its own.  I like that the Elves were characters (dicks as they are) and that they have their own concerns in life as to why they are not trying to get tangled up in some crusade against evil.  I like that they added a cool female elf commando and that she wants to bang the Dwarf Prince Fili, and the Elf Prince Legolas... Kind of star fucker now that I think about it... But she is good at what she does, killing orcs and doing healing magic.  I also like that the Dwarf group breaks up a bit, half going to fight the Dragon, the other half staying behind to care for the sick and get ambushed by Orcs, that is a lot of fun and breaks up the action for each.

            Really, everything that was an addition worked for me, and all the most faithful plotting to hold to the book disappointed me... I guess what I really want is just an original story told in the Middle Earth universe, rather than just an adaptation of the books.  Tell me about the Blue Wizards, what happened to them when they left so long ago that Gandalf has forgotten their names.  Give Radigast something to do.  Show me some minor Elrond adventure.  Do something that isn't so hung up on an existing book, because I am tired of people complaining that this isn't enough like the book.  If you want the book, read the book.  I did.  I liked it a lot.  It is really short and fun.

Movies of 2013, Apocalypses, pt2

Apocalypse Films (or "What is the Dumbest Thing I have seen all Year?")

            Aliens came down and made everything into shit.  I guess the only way to save it is through heroic self sacrifice, or friendship... or being incredibly selfish.

Oblivion, or "What a Twist in that at least it looks Pretty."

Overall: 5/10

It's look is as pretty as the plot is preposterous.

            I called every single thing that happens in this thing from the trailer.  It is cliché sci-fi mystery whose twist is that it was in fact, a different cliché all along.

            It is visually engaging, the sound and light and whole aesthetic work really well.  Though I cannot really figure out why Tom Cruise's uniform would be the impossible to keep clean and impossible to hide in bright white, rather than digital camouflage or just plain black, he is going into a hostile wasteland filled with monsters to try and repair killer robots.  Also, it is really odd that Tom Cruise is the lead in this movie.  He is 50 years old, and while I am sure that the main character's sense of humor and quirks were his invention as he is a good actor, he is 20 years older than the women playing his love interests, and when you take into account the twist of his existence his physical age becomes even more of an issue.

            Spoiler time discussion: Tom Cruise is a clone.  Who clones a guy and then ages him to 50?  Wouldn't a 30 year old Cruise be more of a physical asset?  This is not a shot against Cruise's body, which for a 50 year old is in really good shape, I could only hope to look as good when I am his age, but the point is that makes no sense.  Channing Tatum, Liam Hemsworth, Ryan Gosling are all in their physical prime and would be more convincing for what this role demands... But even the role itself makes no sense.

Why would its number decal be only on the front?  And why is it also really bright white?

            This giant alien robot clones astronauts to use as shock troops to defeat earth?  Why does it have the ability to do that?  Biological systems are hard to replicate, has it done this before on other populated worlds throughout the galaxy?  Why?  It has killer, flying, robots.  Let me explain in no uncertain terms, robots feel no pain, no fear, they require no sleep, no food, and no comfort.  Robots will follow orders without fail, they never get stressed out and never require any sort of pep-talk or status report... Humans require all of those things.  So why use clones?  Robots are clearly superior, the US military thinks Drones are the best thing for killing enemies since Cain killed Able.  Humans are squishy, whiney, and demanding, the alien drones are fast and powerful.  There is no reason to have Cruise clones at all.  And that is the real core as to why this movie is incredibly stupid.

            Additional problems: most actors are not developed, causing their actions to be questionable or just pensive and obnoxious for no reason.

            Additional blessings: the look of the movie is top notch, especially the armor of the human resistance being made out of stealth material but still having feathers or other adornments gives them a lot of visual personality.

The World's End, or "I am kind of siding with the bad guys on this one."

Overall: 8/10

I have given all of Edgar Wright's other movies a 10/10, so this one may warm on me.

            If you like humor based on goofy action or quick dialogue then this movie should really work for you.  A strong ensemble cast, a fun premise (pub crawl during an alien invasion), and a very cool twist on the whole thing which gives the characters arcs and growth.  It should be watched, and while it is not the strongest of Edgar Wrights movies it is still one of the best movies out this year.

            Spoiler time discussion: strictly speaking the end of this movie almost killed it for me.  The aliens are confronted, and are so frustrated with humanity's inability to just sit down and have a polite discussion that they nuke the planet into an endless dark age.  Apparently the aliens gave us the internet and were offering a sort of immortality in the form of becoming robots... I am kind of on their side.  Bland, but just as peaceful and fun as one could imagine.  Instead all of humanity has to live in the Fallout universe... that sucks.