The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

As has probably become painfully obvious by now, I am something of a fantasy junky. And like most fantasy fans of my generation, I can trace the beginnings of this - let's call it fondness to avoid the (probably more accurate) word obsession - to a few very good books I read as a teen. There was the obvious Harry Potter series, Ursula K. Leguin Tales of Earthsea, some Douglas Adams and some Narnia and a lot of Philip Pullman, but also, and maybe most importantly Tolkien. 

The thing about Middle Earth is that it is a world that never seems to end - I read Lord of the Rings a couple of years before the movies came out, and then suddenly there were all those other books set up in this amazing world, and I simply had to read them all - The Silmarilion, Unfinished Tales, The Hobbit, to name a few. So, in short: I blame Tolkien.

Much of the hype was due to the success of Peter Jackson's trilogy, and it was well deserved. High Fantasy is a difficult genre, often long, with so many characters you can't keep them straight (cf- the hilarious cheat sheet for the Dwarves of Thorin's Company!) and meandering plots that take thousands of pages to get to the point, in language that is not always very straightforward. If you are an impatient reader, or have a short attention span, it can get tiring and confusing very quickly, and people just give up. So, good movies, that are faithful to the books they are based on, is a great compromise, a perfect way to delve into this new world and maybe grab the attention of people. Unlike some other die-hard fans, I am not at all opposed to movie adaptations of books I like (even if I have been disappointed before *cough* Eragon *cough*) and the Hobbit was just the same - I was there on opening night.

So, ten years after giving us the Lord of the Rings trilogy, Peter Jackson comes back with three new films that tell the tale of how Bilbo Baggins, Frodo's uncle, was hired as a burglar in Thorin Oakshield's Company, and set out on a quest to reclaim Eresbor, the last great dwarf kingdom of Middle Earth, from the dragon Smaug. The story is set 60 years before the events of Lord of the Rings, and is a prequel to that story, setting the scene from some very important plot points.

As always with Peter Jackson, the cast is superb:

Martin Freeman .......... Young Bilbo Baggins

Ian McKellan .............. Gandalf the Grey

Richard Armitage ....... Thorin Oakshield

Ken Stott .................... Balin

Aidan Turner .............. Kili

Dean O'Gorman ......... Fili

Hugo Weaving .......... Lord Elrond

Cate Blanchett ........... Lady Galadriel

Christopher Lee ......... Saruman the White

Sylvester McCoy........ Radagast the Brown

Andy Serkis ............... Gollum

I don't think I have seen such a perfect fit as Armitage in the role of Thorin in a long time - the voice, the bearing,  the frown, everything fits perfectly. Kili and Fili are delightful, and really, all the company as a group have great chemistry (even if I have a soft spot for Kili and his bow). The opening scenes in Bilbo's house are truly terrific - between the comedy of the kitchen raid, and the aching melancholy of the dwarves singing Mysty Mountain  in front of the fire - they set the tone for the quest perfectly.

The rest of the film continues much as a quest would - there are amazing location shots, and very good fight scenes (the running battle against the Goblins under the mountain is particularly good). The plot advances at a brisk pace, with new enemies and old foes appearing at regular intervals. 

Don't take this the wrong way - the film was great. Even knowing what was going to happen in advance (and isn't that a bittersweet thing!) I was still bitting my nails off when Thorin jumped from his tree to confront Azog, and cheering Bilbo when he followed (on a side note, isn't Bilbo a much more engaging hero than Frodo? I certainly think so!). It was a long movie, and some scenes dragged a bit but most did not. In fact the only thing I found really longwinded was the meeting with Gollum - it is an extremely important scene, in terms of longterm plot-lines, but a couple of times I got tired of dealing with Gollum's multiple personalities and just wanted everything to move on and to go back to the characters I actually care about.

Still, to feel that only once in a movie that is nearly 3 hours long is something. All in all, it was a great film.

A few more points for the Golden Gentlemen Challenge:

- 1 film + 1 actor = 2 points + 3 points from before for a total of 5 points in the challenge so far.

Anna Karenina - Joe Wright

When I saw this movie come out, I was in a bit of a quandary. You see, I really like Joe Wright, and I have since I saw his perfect adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. However, on the other hand, I strongly dislike Anna Karenina. It is such a melodramatic story, and I simply can't relate to the main characters, no matter how masterful the writing (the book is largely considered to be Tolstoy's masterpiece). On top of that, I had seen a couple of previous adaptations, and been largely underwhelmed - I don't like drama for drama's sake, and I always felt that the films tried too hard to force an emotional response.

But then, I saw the trailer for this latest adaptation, and was intrigued. It might not have been enough to drag me to a movie theater, but my mom insisted, and in the end, it was worth it.

Director ............................... Joe Wright

Screenplay ........................... Tom Stoppard

Keira Knightley .................. Anna Karenina

Jude Law ............................ Alexei Karenin

Aaron Taylor-Johnson ....... Count Vronsky

Matthew Macfadyen ........... Prince Oblonsky

Kelly MacDonald ............... Dolly

Domhnall Gleeson ............. Levin

Alicia Vikander .................. Kitty

The plot of Anna Karenina is well-known: set in late 19th century Russian high society, Anna Karenina, the wife of a high ranking imperial officer, starts an affair with the dashing Count Vronsky, which changes all their lives and ends up tragically. What I liked about this adaptation is that it moved beyond the novel's overflowing emotions by setting it in a theater. The whole feature is a long mise en abyme, where the world of the novel is represented in a place - the theater - where overflowing emotions are expected, are a part of the language.

This was a very bold move on Joe Wright's part, that in my opinion made this adaptation great. The visual sequences are so striking, the scenes so fluid (there are whole sequences that haven't been cut even once, all the actors hitting their marks perfectly - it is one of Wright's obvious strengths) that the plot becomes almost secondary. There are a few scenes that escape from this place, and open to a wider world, but they serve mostly to bring what is inside into starker focus.

The music and the acting both helped to maintain the illusion of reality - and I found there was an appealing sobriety in the expressions that made a pleasant counterpoint to the rich clothes and jewels.

There is probably more to say about the film - how funny and sensitive Macfadyen is as Oblonsky, about how this adaptation only touches lightly on the second part of the novel, the whole Levin story, etc... But really, the most impressive thing, what makes this adaptation stand out, are the visual choices, the creation of this permeable reality of the theater where the whole action takes place.

The King's Speech

Most people who know me, and tried to decide on a film to see with me on a given day, know that as I got older I started developing a strong aversion to anything that is overly dramatic and/or tragic. It might be childish of me (though I've decided to see it as a sign of intellectual maturity, so blame me if you dare) but I don't like coming away from a movie depressed and teary eyed. Before, I used to think that all really good movies had to involve tragedy (a belief steaming from the absolutely overwhelming number of bad endings in everything that is popularly considered high culture), but while I still appreciate conflict and tension, I no longer think a film (or a book for that matter) needs to end badly to be considered a masterpiece.

The King's Speech is one of these films that proves my point for me.

The cast for this movie is absolutely amazing, and they made one of the very best films I have seen in the last few years.

Tom Hooper..............................................Director

Colin Firth.................................................King George "Bertie" VI

Helena Bonham Carter..............................Duchess of York / Queen Elizabeth

Geoffrey Rush...........................................Lionel Logue

Derek Jacobi..............................................Archbishop Cosmo Langi

Jennifer Ehle..............................................Myrtle Logue

Timothy Spall............................................Winston Churchill

Guy Pearce................................................King Edward VIII

Michael Gambon.......................................King George V

Eve Best....................................................Wallis Simpson

This film is based on the story of King George VI, the current Queen' father, on the years surrounding his accession to the throne. It is an intimate portrayal of the royal family, centred on his struggles with his speech impediment, and the friendship he developed with Lionel Logue in his attempts to overcome it, as well as his reluctance to accept the responsibility of the crown which is finally trust upon him after his older brother abdicates in order to marry the woman he loves.

The acting in the film is absolutely phenomenal - there are no excesses, every actor plays vividly, but never garishly. Collin Firth, in particular, delivers a very moving performance, and the stutter of his character is present but never exaggerated, never turning ridiculous, which I greatly appreciate. 

I particularly loved Helena Bonham Carter as the Duchess of York - her first meeting with Lionel Logue is one of the funniest scenes I have ever had the pleasure of seeing. She is also amazing as the supporting and loving wife - often staying hopeful for her husband when he has all but given up. 

And one can not talk about this film without mentioning the amazing performance of Geoffrey Rush, who makes an amazing duo with Collin Firth. Their therapy sessions are great as moments of comic relief, and are the basis of a lifelong friendship.

Funny, intense, moving, profoundly human - this is one of those films that should not be missed.

I saw this film again for the Challenges over at Persephone's blog, and kind of hit the jackpot with this one as we have both Colin Firth and Michael Gambon for the Gentlemen, and Helena Bonham Carter for the Ladies.

My point tally is therefore:

- Gentlemen: 2 actors + 1 film = 3 points

- Ladies: 1 actress + 1 film = 2 points + 4 from before for a total 6 points at this time

Yay me!

Brave

I have been a fan of Pixar since their very first movie, Toy Story, came out in 1995. Indeed, much like Harry Potter, they were an integral part of my childhood and I believe the only films from them I haven't seen are Cars 1 and 2 (talking cars creep me out). 

As I grew older, I realized there was a reason for that - there was something special about Pixar movies that eluded the more traditional Disney animations: their stories were designed to please not only children, but adults as well. That is particularly visible in The Incredibles (2004), WALL-E (2008) and Up (2009) which have important plot points designed to speak to a mature audience. With that in mind, I didn't hesitate to go see Brave, their latest animation which won a Golden Globe for best animated feature film.

Brave follows the heroic journey of Merida, a skilled archer and headstrong daughter of King Fergus (voice of Billy Connolly) and Queen Elinor (voice of Emma Thompson). Determined to carve her own path in life, Merida defies an age-old custom sacred to the unruly and uproarious lords of the land: surly Lord Macintosh (voice of Craig Ferguson), massive Lord MacGuffin (voice of Kevin McKidd) and cantankerous Lord Dingwall (voice of Robbie Coltrane). Merida's actions inadvertently unleash chaos and fury in the kingdom, and when she turns to an eccentric Witch (voice of Julie Walters) for help, she is granted an ill-fated wish. The ensuing peril forces Merida to harness all of her skills and resources - including her clever and mischievous triplet brothers - to undo a beastly curse before it's too late, discovering the meaning of true bravery.

As always with Pixar, the animation was superbly done - the scottish highlands are beautifully drawn, and the characters are great (did you see Merida's hair? Isn't that just great?). The music as well is amazing (Mumford and Sons anyone?) and sets the tone for the story perfectly.

This was the first time Pixar ventured into the fairytale realm, and gave us a Disneylike princess. I wasn't very worried about that, being somewhat fond of the genre, but I was very glad that Brave was closer to Mulan than to Cinderella, with a strong leading female character, who isn't afraid to fight for what she wants.

The plot is a little more complex than we might be used to in an animation, and I've heard people who didn't enjoy the movie call it everything from "patchy" to "nonsensical" - and my response is that if you are unable to follow two or three different plotlines that come together in the end, you should try watching it again, in slow motion so you catch all the dialogue.

On the contrary, I thought that the film had surprising depth considering the audience it was intended to attract, as well as a lot of humour. It wasn't as original as Up or WALL-E, I agree, mostly because it draws very heavily from both the traditional stories of the young girl fighting an unwanted marriage and defying tradition, and the one of the girl warrior taking up arms in place of a man.

But despite all that, I absolutely loved it. Everything came together perfectly, and even if it isn't as groundbreaking as some of Pixar's previous works, it is a very pleasant movie, of the kind you can watch again and again without ever getting tired.

I watched this again for the Golden Ladies 2013 challenge, and so here are my current scores:

1 actress + 1 film = 2 point + 2 from before = 4 points 

A little snippet of what awaits you (check out the scottish accents, och!):

Toast

My good friend Gigi is running two challenges through her blog, Down the Rabbit Hole: Persephone and the Cheshire Cat, the 2013 Golden Ladies and Golden Gentlemen challenges. The rules are somewhat complicated (and available in her blog) but basically, one cumulates points by seeing movies, series or performances which feature one or more of the actors and actresses in a selected list – this year Colin Firth, Ian Mckellen, Gary Oldman and Michael Gambon for the guys and Emma Thompson, Helena Bonham Carte, Kate Winslet and Helen Mirren for the girls – and then writing a review of the work.

This seemed like a nice idea (especially since there are some amazing talents on that list) and a good way to force me to start writing again, after more than a whole year of silence. Besides, honestly, Collin Firth is irresistible and the rest is just icing on the cake.

My first stop – chosen at random from the list, and mostly because it had a strange title – was called Toast, featuring the amazing Helena Bonham Carter.

Director  .................................... S. J. Clarckson

Oscar Kennedy ......................... Young Nigel Slater

Freddie Highmore ................... Nigel Slater

Victoria Hamilton .................... Mrs. Slater

Ken Stott .................................. Mr. Slater
Helena Bonham Carter ........... Mrs. Potter

Matthew McNulty .................... Josh

When I went looking for the film, I discovered a few other appealing things about it. First, Lee Hall - the same person who gave us Billy Elliot - wrote it based on the memoir of the same name by Nigel Slater, and food plays an important part in the plot (I saw Julie and Julia recently, and it seemed fitting to stay on the same note).

Thus motivated, I went ahead and whiled away a few hours of a Saturday afternoon in front of my computer, and came away not exactly blown away, but by no means feeling as if it was a waste of time.

Indeed, the film has some of the same characteristic that made Billy Elliot such an amazing work: it is satirical and funny without demeaning the characters; it has drama and psychological depth without taking itself too seriously; it has conflict and an engaging plot, but doesn’t leave us reeling afterwards.

So far, so good, right? There is one major difference, however, and it is not in Toast’s favour: the main character in Billy Elliot is great – he is strong, and sensitive, and talented and despite all the hardships, he still loves and is loved by his family. Nigel Slater, in Toast, comes across as an annoying, spoilt, self-centred little twerp, who is incapable of taking other people’s feelings into consideration before doing anything. Very different levels of empathy towards the main character there, which have an impact on how touched the viewer is by the film.

All in all, Toast is a nice, light-hearted movie, with some very good acting (the boy who plays Nigel in the first part is particularly good, and Helena Bonham Carter is, as always, flawless even in the role of a very unsavoury character).

My point tally: 1 actress + 1 film = 2 points in the Golden Ladies Challenge.