UNBROKEN/INTO THE WOODS

THE CHRISTMAS DAY RELEASES

Two of the holiday season’s most anticipated movies opened nationwide on December 25, 2014—the intense drama Unbroken, based on the real-life wartime experiences of Italian-American WWII vet Louie Zamperini, and the wild musical Into the Woods, a Stephen Sondheim-penned mash-up of several popular Brothers Grimm fairytales set to a fast and furious musical score. I had been waiting to see both films (I love musicals, and Unbroken, for months, looked to be one of the Must-See flicks of the season) and managed to track both down within 5 days of their opening.

I found both films to be disappointing. Like many true-story films, Unbroken ended up little more than a point-by-point recitation of events—a history book come to life. The film was polished and well-acted but felt empty. The idea that the late Zamperini really lived through the experiences depicted and came out to live a long, productive, forgiving life is compelling; the film was often less so, largely because all the characters were underwritten and all of the movie’s moments of highest-passion had been revealed by the trailers. On the other hand, Into the Woods was lively and vivacious and brought to life by an exceptional, energetic cast, but the movie ended up defeated by its relentlessly twisty plot and curious shifts in tone. Part fairy tale, part satire, part moody magical fare—it threw me too many times and, in the end, felt quite long.

A few more of my (hopefully) shorter thoughts on each appear below:

UNBROKEN

Grade: B-

Plot

A troubled youth turned Olympic runner, Louie Zamperini (played by British actor Jack O’Connell) ended up a bombardier in the Pacific theater of World War II. When their plane ditched in the ocean after a mechanical failure, Louie and two of his mates survived in a life raft adrift at sea for 45 days before being picked up by a Japanese warship. There followed torture including near-starvation, physical beating, isolation, grueling interrogation and internment in several labor camps. Singled out for punishment and degradation by a haughty Japanese officer (Takamasa Ishihara) due to his status as an Olympian, Louie was driven nearly to his wit’s end. However, once the war ended, he escaped his nightmare and was reunited with his family.

What Worked?

Louie’s story is certainly compelling, and Director Angeline Jolie’s film brings it to vivid life. O’Connell acts his butt off in what could well be a star-making performance, and he’s ably supported by Domhnall Gleeson in a buddy-buddy relationship that carries the middle of the film.The movie’s technically flawless, and has some moments of fierce emotion that could bring a tear to the eye.

What Didn’t Work?

Maybe it’s true-story-movie fatigue, but Unbroken feels very long, very slow, and very dry. Obviously, Zamperini’s lengthy wartime experiences weren’t short and entertaining and so neither should the film be, but with no love interest, flashbacks exhausted early, plus minimal dialogue and important characters, Unbroken gives the viewer precious little to invest in. And all the movie’s most important dramatic moments were telegraphed in advance by the many trailers. One key character in the movie (Ishihara’s torturer) turned out to be feebly underwritten and was given one moment of emotional breakthrough that felt all wrong. Once upon a time, Louie’s story would have been hailed as a groundbreaking, epic marvel, but here, in addition to being long (137 minutes) and feeling long, it was also hard to shake the feeling that nearly every part of the story had been done before, and better, by at least one other film (Empire of the Sun, Pearl Harbor, Life of Pi, Schindler’s List and Forrest Gump were some of the movies that came to mind).

Bottom Line

I have a feeling many will disagree with me on this movie, but Unbroken was a little too long and not nearly exciting enough. Again, I’ve got nothing but respect and awe for the late Zamperini for his courage and wherewithal, but watching the movie turned out to be quite the arduous task.

**UNBROKEN was rated PG-13 for thematic material including language, violence, scenes of brutality and torture, disturbing images, and intense emotional content

 

INTO THE WOODS

Grade: B

Plot

In a village on the outskirts of a magic kingdom, an old witch (Meryl Streep) nurses an old grudge that has included cursing a household to bear no children. Desperate, a baker (James Corden) and his barren wife (Emily Blunt) ask the witch what they can do. She gives them 72 hours to provide her with a cow as white as milk, a lock of hair the color of corn, a shoe was pure as gold, and a cape as red as blood. They’re in luck—in their nearby wood, a young girl (Lilla Crawford) travels to visit her grandmother while wearing a bright red cloak with a hood; also, a young peasant boy named Jack (Daniel Huttlestone) leads his white family cow to market to sell it. Also living nearby is a harried maiden named Cinderella (Anna Kendrick), who cooks and cleans for her haughty stepmother (Christine Baranski) and her spoiled daughters, who mock Cinderella when she asks to go to a ball hosted by the king’s son (Chris Pine). But a burst of supernatural magic drapes Cinderella in a glittering golden dress and matching golden shoes, and she catches the prince’s eye. And all these people have heard the distant beautiful singing voice of another young maiden (Mackenzie Mauzy) who’s been shut high in a tower in which she is joined by those who are able to climb her long golden hair. The baker and his wife soon encounter each of these unique people and seek to acquire the items the witch requested, but things are not what they seem.

What Worked?

The concept is really quite clever, and it was easy to get interested and invested in Into the Woods, what with the introduction of so many familiar characters and story elements. It didn’t hurt that the cast was brilliant, from the always-great Streep and the fantastic Blunt to the girl-next-door Kendrick and humble Corden—not to mention the energetic kids (Lilla and Daniel) and an amusing turn by Pine as the suave but dopey prince. The songs were also wonderfully irresistible and catchy (you can’t watch this movie and walk out NOT humming/singing the titular tune) and the effects were largely top notch.

What Didn’t Work?

From an agreeable, interesting and tidy first half, Into the Woods seemed to become the musical version of Inception, with a relentlessly-winding plot that never lost that playful glint in its eye but also went on too long and featured a few jarring, uncharacteristic deaths. There is so much packed into this movie that it started to become too busy and you rather wanted it to just be over already. I give it points for energy and originality, but it overstayed its welcome.

Bottom Line

Most musicals are superbly exciting and endearing at their best, but it’s hard to maintain that level of energy for a long time, and Into the Woods, despite its explosion of characters and plot lines and songs and ideas, was no different. The acting and singing were great, but the movie threw in some nasty turns and just went on too long. I really would like to see the stage version, though.

**INTO THE WOODS was rated PG and included scary moments, some disturbing images, sensuality and some action

 

UNBROKEN (2014)
Directed by Angeline Jolie
Written for the Screen by Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese and William Nicholson
Based on the book ‘Unbroken’ by Laura Hillenbrand
Cast: Jack O’Connell, Domhnall Gleason, Garrett Hedlund, Takamasa Ishihara, and Fitt Wittrock
Rated PG-13
Length: 137 minutes

 

INTO THE WOODS (2014)

Directed by Rob Marshall
Screenplay by James Lapine
Based on the musical by James Lapine (book) and Stephen Sondheim (music and lyrics)
Cast: James Corden, Emily Blunt, Meryl Streep, Daniel Huttlestone, Anna Kendrick, Lilla Crawford, Chris Pine, Tracy Ullman, Christine Baranski, Johnny Depp, Mackenzie Mauzy and Billy Magnussen
Rated PG
Length: 125 minutes

FOXCATCHER

Foxcatcher

Grade: A-

Starring: Channing Tatum, Steve Carell, and Mark Ruffalo; with Sienna Miller as Nancy and Vanessa Redgrave as Mrs. DuPont

Premise: Based on the real-life relationship between Olympic Champion wrestler Mark Schultz and eccentric billionaire John DuPont, who had dreams of coaching and funding the U.S. Olympic wrestling team but also had a dark side.

Rated R for language, some violence, disturbing images, drug use, and some intense emotional content

Foxcatcher is one of most emotionally-grueling movies you'll ever see about a love triangle, and it's about three men. They aren’t romantically involved with one another, but it's impossible to watch this movie and not see the parallels to romantic relationships, as the intertwined bonds here all center around the ideas of commitment, loyalty, pleasure, faithfulness, selfishness, and caring. It’s impossible to see the cold shoulders, lingering stares, and quiet frustration in a way that doesn’t compare to a romantic scenario. And the question “Do you have a problem with me?” has scarcely ever been used in so unnerving a way as it is here.

Based on a dark, sad true story, Foxcatcher is a movie that has been waiting in the wings to come out for at least a year. It’s one of those very quiet, understated movies—some might say frustratingly so—but it was worth the wait, featuring three strong performances that serve as indelible, relatable psychological portraits and deserve awards recognition. Directed by Bennett Miller, director of the Oscar-nominated films Capote and Moneyball, it’s a gripping, suspenseful, thought-provoking movie. 

Plot

Not long removed from winning an Olympic Gold medal in the ’84 Games in Los Angeles, competitive wrestler Mark Schultz (an excellent Channing Tatum) is limping through life. Though he gets the occasional promotional speaking engagement, his life is mostly about training and eating, training and eating, to stay in shape for ’88 Games in Seoul. His life is also unavoidably linked to that of his older brother Dave (Mark Ruffalo, wonderful), who basically raised Mark after their parents split when they were young and has also won Olympic Gold. Unlike the sullen, withdrawn Mark, Dave is a light-hearted, compassionate man with a pretty wife and two young kids, and he hasn’t given up the habit of looking after his younger brother. But what Dave can’t quite grasp is—Mark is looking for a purpose.

A purpose is seemingly handed to him out of nowhere when billionaire John DuPont (Steve Carell) summons Mark to his Pennsylvania estate and then reveals his grand plans of training a wrestling team and even, one day, leading a wrestling team to Olympic glory. His elderly mother (Vanessa Redgrave) considers wrestling a “low” sport, but DuPont, who’s quiet, halting, awkward manner doesn’t endear many to him, has the money to shell out to get what he wants. What he wants is for Mark to be the centerpiece of a medal-winning wrestling team—Team Foxcatcher, named after DuPont’s estate. Dave is immediately suspicious of the out-of-nowhere offer that comes with a cozy house on the estate, a state-of-the-art training facility, and access to DuPont’s thousands, but Mark takes to it like an eager puppy. It isn’t long before Mark and DuPont are close, celebrating Mark’s Gold at the Wresting World Championships and bird-watching and working out together. But when DuPont pays Dave top dollar for him and his family to come live on the estate and for Dave to be an assistant coach of Foxcatcher, Mark feels blindsided and betrayed. Dave didn’t want to accept the offer in order to keep his family grounded, but, when he arrives, he finds more than the wrestling team and the fancy estate. He finds his brother a slovenly wreck, having been introduced by DuPont to cocaine and booze, and been used almost like a pet by the selfish billionaire. As Team Foxcatcher begins preparing for the 1988 Olympic Trials, Dave and DuPont become engaged in a war of wills over who is Mark’s true best friend and best teacher.

What Works?

The movie was masterfully filmed and edited, with many individual images speaking many more words than the often minimal dialogue ever could. But what Works, above all, are the men behind its three protagonists, all of whom have rarely been this effective onscreen before.

The performance most buzzed-about in the lead-up to the film’s release has undoubtedly been that of Steve Carell, the beloved comedian who takes a sharp 180 here to play the simplistic, quietly-unnerving DuPont. Given the amount of buzz the actor has received for (as it’s been called) a “career-changing performance”—he’s gotten a Best Actor Golden Globe nomination, among other accolades—it’s difficult to come in not knowing it is Carell under prosthetics, but, as the character gets more screen-time, it’s soon easier to see past the actor and into the real-life figure he’s portraying. A child of privilege (the DuPont family’s fortune came from chemicals and weapon-manufacturing) who grew up needing nothing material, John was left a lonely man with a big name and high status, but nothing to show for it. DuPont obviously felt the expectation to be great and looked for a way to do it, settling on the sport of wrestling. It’s easy to see why his speeches about making America great and honoring one’s country with athletic performance worked like a magic trick on the purpose-seeking Mark; it’s also easy to see why, when his team’s performance started to slip and looked like it might not lead him to his almighty goals, DuPont went quietly insane. Carell’s performance—his awkward bearing, his halting speech, and his unpredictable manner—is impressive, and best summed up in his brilliant reaction to Mark’s claim that DuPont “can’t buy” Dave’s services (several seconds of complete silence and stillness followed by an uncomprehending “huh”).

DuPont is largely a background figure in the film, though, as the movie belongs to the actors playing the Schultz brothers—the gentle-giant Tatum dominates the first half with his workmanlike attitude and puppy-dog desire, and Ruffalo, as the grounded, genteel, and increasingly-wary Dave, dominates the second half. For my money, it’s the best performance Tatum has given by far, with the actor’s notable bulk easily allowing him to portray a character who seems all muscle and almost no personality. All Mark does is train and eat. He’s a simple guy who can be easily manipulated (by DuPont) without realizing it, but can also accomplish incredible feats when properly cared-for and nurtured (by Dave). Tatum largely lets his sad eyes and face do the talking, but he explodes in a wrenching scene of self-mutilation following a poor outing in the ring. The character is crushingly-sad, especially when you know how much Mark has been taken advantage of and molded for others’ purposes. The reliably-great Ruffalo has the least screen-time but by far the most likeable and relatable character; Dave is a great guy who suffers much worse than he deserves as he tries to be everybody’s friend and yet tries to take a stand when he realizes his fragile younger brother is collapsing under the weight of DuPont’s expectations.

Carell and Ruffalo have both been in the Oscar conversation for months (the former for Best Actor, the latter for Supporting Actor). While I acknowledge and appreciate the sentiment (especially for Ruffalo), I believe Tatum deserves as much credit for his quietly-devastating portrayal.

What Doesn’t Work?

Foxcatcher hit me almost immediately as one of those movies that was really good, but could have been even better with a bit more dialogue to liven things up. As I said before, its many images and the actors’ performances (verbal and nonverbal) make the film work, but the movie is more understated than it needs to be. This slow manner makes its two-hours-and-ten-minutes pass slowly; even so, I wouldn’t have minded seeing a few more concluding scenes, particularly scenes of Mark dealing with a personal tragedy. But this is ultimately a very effective movie.

Content

Foxcatcher is dark. Its themes and story, alone, probably earned it the R-rating, but it does have a few cuss words, a few scenes of drug use, and some tough scenes of Mark coping with nerves and pressure before and after important wrestling bouts (including making himself throw up to shed pounds bleeding from the head after smashing a mirror in disgust).

Bottom Line

Ahh, how I’ve been waiting to see it… Foxcatcher could have livened things up a bit with a little more dialogue, and could have been more emotionally weighty with a longer ending, but these are small complaints. It’s a fascinating character study, with award-worthy performances by Steve Carell, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo as they portray three men with very different psychological make-ups and motivations. The way these characters come together, fall apart, team up, betray each other, clash, and hurtle toward a terrible climax is fascinating and worth checking out. Based on a true story.

Foxcatcher (2014)

Directed by Bennett Miller
Screenplay by E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman
Rated R
Length: 134 minutes

WILD

Wild

Grade: A-

Starring: Reese Witherspoon and Laura Dern; with Thomas Sadoski as Paul, Keene McRae as Leif, and Bobbi Strayed Lindstrom as young Cheryl

Premise: A young divorcee still grieving from the unexpected death of her mother hikes over 1,100 miles of the Pacific Crest Trail. The film is adapted from her memoir.

Rated R for language, nudity, sexuality, intense emotional content, and depictions of drug use

Wild may be a movie about one person’s extra-ordinary journey, but what makes it so compelling is its spot-on depiction of how ordinary life works. Directed by Jean-Marc Vallee, the man behind last year’s Oscar-winning drama Dallas Buyers Club, Wild captures the ordinary, matter-of-factness of life—the sights, the sounds, the random experiences, people who come into our lives for a few minutes or a few days and then go off, just because that’s what happens. Sure, the movie is flashback-driven (depicting real-life experiences of its protagonist, Cheryl Strayed), but the flashbacks don’t happen neatly and in order, they occur randomly, sparked by random events or thoughts or just because, because that’s how memories work to the ordinary person. This is reality. And because some of those random flashbacks are ones of great emotional upheaval or personal trauma, the movie develops a real, affecting emotional pulse. Starring the likeable, expressive Reese Witherspoon in her best role in a long time, Wild is a quiet but very powerful movie.

Plot

In 1995, Cheryl Strayed (Witherspoon, and the last name is pronounced “strayed”) decided to walk the Pacific Crest Trail (also called the PCT), from the southernmost point at the US-Mexico border to the northernmost point at the US-Canada border. Bearing an enormous pack she could barely lift and tools and gear she barely knew how to use, she walked because she wanted to “walk back to the woman my mom wanted me to be”. Her mom was dearly-departed Bobbi (Laura Dern), a poor, under-educated woman who got two children from a marriage that turned abusive, but never stopped smiling, trying, and living life to the fullest. Her sudden death at 45 of lung cancer scarred Cheryl deeply—the grief sent her into a tailspin that led to her neglecting her husband (Thomas Sadoski), falling out with her younger brother (Keene McRae), sleeping around, and slipping into drug use. Estrangement, divorce, and an abortion followed. So Cheryl hikes the trail because that’s the only thing she can think to do, because it’s a way to accomplish something worthwhile. Along the way she reflects on her life—some high points but many low points—suffers bruises and aches and pains, gets help from random strangers, and, as seemingly the only woman to pursue the PCT without quitting right away, becomes something of a celebrity among her fellow hikers. She also begins to develop hopes and fears about her life after the trail.

What Works?

As I stated before, the movie feels very real. Cheryl has experiences just because, she moves on, she has more experiences, but each little experience touches her in some way. Contrary to the plot of most movies, some of these experiences aren’t meant to be lingering experiences that will come up again and develop some larger meaning—they’re just part of life. One particular such instance is when Cheryl happens to find a llama wandering alone in the woods, only to be thanked graciously by its owners when they appear moments later, though she really didn’t do anything. Another occurs when she meets another experienced woman hiking the trail and gets to share a few personal anecdotes, and it’s engaging in a way only an encounter between two friendly women can be. Later, the sweet singing of a child who offers reduces Cheryl to tears with its innocent beauty. And Cheryl and a stranger get a laugh later when the no longer socially-inclined Cheryl lets slip an awkward innuendo during a simple conversation.

And again, the random order in which the flashbacks come feels very indicative of real life—the whole movie feels very unforced (though the flashbacks depicted Cheryl’s mother’s death were powerful, I experienced even more emotion at another, simpler, more everyday kind of moment). It also feels less “episodic” then other road movies.

I don’t think I’ve seen Reese Witherspoon in a movie since 2005’s Walk the Line, for which she won her Best Actress Oscar. Though I haven’t seen many of her movies of late, I’ve liked her as far back as 1998’s Pleasantville. And it’s astonishing to consider that she’s 38 years old. I feel like she could still play the lead role of a college student in Legally Blonde if it came out now, as opposed to 13 years ago. Here, she plays a teenaged Cheryl in some high school flashbacks, and it’s believable. I’m tempted to say she’s a little too glamorous for this particular part, as she can’t pass for Just Another Person with her made-for-the-screen looks; the movie possibly could have been more effective with an unknown in the lead. Then again, I have to remind myself that it’s not only “normal-looking” or “less-attractive” women who have difficulties in life and have to overcome severe traumas. Like the movie’s plain, realistic approach, it works. I think the real stars of the movie are Jean-Marc Vallee and screenwriter Nick Hornby—for crafting such a touching and natural-feeling movie—but Witherspoon gives a winning and heartfelt performance.

What Doesn’t Work?

Wild felt a bit long, but the only real complaint I have is that the movie doesn’t give you much to invest in (few supporting characters, few lengthy conversations). Then again, that’s kind of everyday real life, isn’t it? Life isn’t necessarily chock-full of Oscar-worthy emotional episodes or classic characterizations.

Content

Wild earns its R-rating. There are cuss words aplenty, plus some full frontal nudity and brief but graphic depictions of different sex positions. The squeamish will also have to deal with close-ups of bruises and blisters and needles poking into skin.

Bottom Line                                                                                     

It’s about a real woman’s pretty epic accomplishment, but Wild feels like one of the most matter-of-fact movies you’ll ever see. Then again, that random matter-of-factness is what makes it so real and relatable—you usually can’t control what memories you dwell on; you can’t take things back; not every encounter with a person of the opposite gender is a Meet Cute; we don’t always just “get over” things, and move on. Wild depicts personal traumas many will understand, and it could very well coax a few tears (I teared up twice). Starring Reese Witherspoon in a role that’s gotten Best Actress Oscar buzz, it’s a real-life out-in-the-wilderness flick along the lines of Into the Wild and 127 Hours, and it’s one of my favorite movies of the year so far.

Wild (2014)

Directed by Jean-Marc Vallee
Screenplay by Nick Hornby
Based on the memoir “Wild: From Lost to Found on the Pacific Crest Trail” by Cheryl Strayed
Rated R
Length: 115 minutes

THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF FIVE ARMIES

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies

Grade: B+

Directed by Peter Jackson

STARRING: Martin Freeman, Richard Armitage, Sir Ian McKellen, Luke Evans, Evangeline Lilly, Lee Pace, Orlando Bloom, and Aidan Turner; Also FEATURING Manu Bennett as Azog (the Pale Orc), Ryan Gage as Alfrid, Dean O’Gorman as Fili, Ken Stott as Balin, Graham McTavish as Dwalin, Lawrence Makoare as Bolg, and Billy Connolly as Dain Ironfoot; WITH Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Christopher Lee as Saruman, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, Ian Holm as Older Bilbo, and Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug and the voice of Sauron
PREMISE: After the dragon Smaug abandons his treasure horde, armies of dwarves, men, orcs and elves descend on The Lonely Mountain, each ready to fight to the death for the old fortress and the gold within.

Rated PG-13 for strong violence and intense action (including several decapitations), scary moments, some emotional content, and brief language

Let’s get this out of the way: neither this movie nor its predecessors (2013’s The Desolation of Smaug and 2012’s The Unexpected Journey) has anything on the Lord of the Rings films that were released in 2001, 2002, and 2003. All derived from J.R.R. Tolkien’s ‘The Hobbit or There And Back Again’, originally published in 1937, the Hobbit films—though created and directed by the same team that made that truly epic, wonderful trilogy—flounder in comparison with those movies. They may have been enough to satisfy and intrigue fans of the LOTR movies, and, to a lesser extent, fans of Tolkien’s Middle Earth universe, but they still fell far short of the Rings films in terms of scope, character development, emotional depth, and, surprisingly, convincing visual effects. There’s no contest (even without considering that the Rings films combined to win 15 Oscars while the Hobbit flicks have barely even been nominated), and you should know that the person writing this is a lifelong die-hard fan of ‘The Hobbit’ book.

Was it a little presumptuous, over-the-top and flat-out mercenary for Oscar-winning director Peter Jackson and company to make three epic-length movies out of the barely-200-page ‘Hobbit’ book? Yes. Were the movies total crap? Absolutely not. And, though I could, personally, talk ‘till I was blue in the face about the things the movies included that weren’t in the book and details they changed and how much they clearly stretched out these movies, I’ll gladly re-watch them. The Battle of Five Armies, the final film in the Hobbit series, may not be the most faithful to the book but is probably the best and most entertaining of the three movies. It’s shorter on boring exposition than its predecessors, it has considerably more action, and it brings together all the most important human, hobbit, dwarf, wizard and elf characters that have been running around separately for most of the series so far. It struggles a bit to fill even a 144-minute running time (by far the shortest in the Hobbit or Rings series) with interesting content, but it ultimately delivers the action goods, and brings the story full circle to the point that it ends with a pleasant little re-doing of one of the early scenes from 2001’s Fellowship of the Ring. Die-hards fans of the book will have a cow, but this is a solid film that almost makes you regret that this is the end, at least for the foreseeable future, of cinematic adventures in Middle Earth.

Plot

**SPOILER ALERT: If you have not read the book, you are encouraged to at least skip this ‘Plot’ section to avoid learning key elements of this film. Also, people wanting to see ‘Battle of the Five Armies’ are strongly encouraged to watch the first two ‘Hobbit’ films if they have not yet seen them, as this installment starts within minutes of the end of ‘The Desolation of Smaug’.**

Infuriated by the trespassing dwarves in his cave, the dragon Smaug attacks Esgaroth—also known as Laketown—for giving the dwarves shelter and food and the means to come to the Lonely Mountain’s shores. Though hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) and his dwarf companions can only watch helplessly as the dragon rains fire and destruction on the town, all is not lost. Courageous Bard (Luke Evans) manages to kill the dragon with a one-in-a-million arrow shot and then lead the survivors of Laketown’s wreckage to safety. There, the people hail Bard as their savior and leader, and look to him for direction. With many wounded, no homes, and little food, things soon look bleak for the survivors until assistance miraculously arrives from the nearby kingdom of Wood Elves. With carts of food and drink and medicine, the elven king Thrandruil (Lee Pace) immediately wins the people’s hearts and their assistance, if necessary, as he looks to the now dragon-free Lonely Mountain, which everyone knows has lower halls full to bursting with gold. In fact, Thrandruil has a highly-trained army of elves ready to chase Bilbo and the dwarves out of the halls—or kill them—if they don’t comply with his demands.

His demands concern some of the many gems and treasures that have, in the lieu of the dragon, passed into the ownership of Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), heir to the throne of Erebor, the dwarf kingdom that thrived in the mountain before the dragon plundered it decades before. Now officially a king with a kingdom, Thorin appears increasingly power-mad and unlikely to negotiate with, or yield to, requests for assistance from the homeless Lake-men or demands for treasure from the elves. Even the return of wise wizard Gandalf the Grey (Sir Ian McKellen) can’t sway Thorin, who has become so power-mad and gold-obsessed he appears ready to turn on his own dwarves for the slightest sign of disagreement or sedition. Bilbo and Gandalf try to negotiate a truce between the two sides while Thorin sends messenger ravens requesting reinforcements from a nearby dwarf kingdom run by his cousin, but none of them know that an even more terrible adversary is swiftly approaching. Azog, the Pale Orc (Manu Bennett) and his merciless henchman Bolg (Lawrence Makoare), driven by the spirit of the ancient warlord Sauron, are hellbent on turning the mountain fortress into an outpost of darkness, and they’ve raised several huge armies of orcs and trolls to crush help crush any foes that might stand in their way.

What Works?

Let’s be honest here: what would you rather see—the explanation of how the story started, the middle section where nothing really gets accomplished, or the one where an angry dragon attacks a city and then all the main characters fight each other? Me, too. So, with all hands on deck and little plot to explain, The Battle of Five Armies is inherently more interesting than the previous films. It sure cracks along, early—the first half is probably the best the Hobbit movies have been so far, revisiting all the major characters and watching as Gandalf, Thrandruil and Bard debate the necessity of war over the gold, and while Bilbo and the dwarves look on helplessly as Thorin becomes a dark shadow of the noble dwarf he once was. And then, of course, the action starts, with men, dwarves and elves fighting huge armies of orcs and trolls. This epic cocktail of multi-faceted conflicts, engaging dialogue and characters of different races bickering and/or becoming allies against even nastier opponents is a pleasant reminder of what made the Rings films so rich and fulfilling. Also, most of it is taken straight out of Tolkien’s text; it’s rather unsurprising that this movie, like its predecessors, is at its best when it’s not trying to simply be a plug for the more popular Rings films but, rather, hearkens back to the true style and tone of its source material.

While this cast still pales in comparison to the larger ensemble that riveted and touched moviegoers throughout the three three-hour Rings films in the early years of the century, the Hobbit group at least gives audiences enough individuals with some amount of intrigue or relatability that we care where they are and what happens to them during the course of these massive battles. As the titular hairy-footed Shire-dweller, Martin Freeman proves what a fine actor he is, and what a shame it is that these movies (which ought to have been almost exclusively focused on him) became more ensemble pics that pushed Bilbo into the background. His final scenes here made me believe he really was the perfect actor for this part. Also impressing were Richard Armitage (in his meatiest go-round yet in the plumb role of haughty Thorin Oakenshield) and Luke Evans (in a beefed-up, charismatic role as the leader of the human fighters in the story); both showing nobility, guile and battlefield know-how, these two came the closest to re-capturing the inherent greatness of the Rings protagonists played by the likes of Viggo Mortensen. And as the primary elf characters (two of whom are not in the ‘Hobbit’ story at all), Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly and Lee Pace managed to bring some personality and depth to what were largely expert ass-kickers with great hair.

What Doesn’t Work?

I would be willing to bet that The Battle of Five Armies chronicles, at most, 40 pages of Tolkien’s book. This movie’s not as bloated as it could be (and, as mentioned, it’s not as long as the previous chapters), but, it still needs to be said that most of the movie is centered around bringing to life a conflict that was mentioned but largely skimmed-over in Tolkien’s text (‘The Hobbit’ was meant to be a children’s story, after all). So it’s almost impossible for the movie to not feel unnecessarily long when it tries to dramatize every twist of a massive battle, particularly in mano-a-mano fights between important good guys and important bad guys that go on for so long they start to feel like ‘boss battles’ in a video game. This overblown misguidance particularly applies to Orlando Bloom’s Legolas, who was an effectively-cool warrior in the Rings films, but, in this Hobbit series, has been given the instincts and agility of Spiderman and the healing/bounce back tendencies of X-Men’s Wolverine. Most of his fights go from engaging and cool to absurd and corny within seconds.

An Unexpected Journey, the first of these Hobbit movies, came out in 2012, nine years after The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. In the years between, we’ve seen visual effects enable cinematic depictions of almost everything, including “un-filmable” works like Life of Pi. Yet, somehow, the visual effects in The Hobbit fall far short of those in the Rings films, to the point that even the massive battle depicted in this installment feels fake and kinda boring—which is the exact opposite how the climactic battle in The Return of the King felt. Here, CGI trumps real figures, so most of the fights take on the depth and grit of a video game, where, in the old films, it never seemed doubtful that Viggo Mortensen, Orlando Bloom, John Rhys-Davies, Miranda Otto and the others were fighting real beings. Thus, despite being about a massive battle, Five Armies has many a moment where it’s actually not all that exciting. There are many video games one could play if they wanted to see armies of computerized beings having at each other. Even with action aside, these Hobbit films felt drenched in computerized animation (and, thus, lacked realism) in a way that the earlier trilogy did not.

There are a few other little touches I feel compelled to mention that chip away at Five Armies’ credibility, like way-too-purposeful close-ups, glaringly-obvious music cues (Peter Jackson and co. must love that ‘hobbit theme’ music, because they use it at every possible opportunity) and lame attempts at occasional humor.

Content

There’s a whole lot of fighting, but, as usual, not many drops of spilled blood. A number of computerized beings do lose their heads, but these shots are not lingered upon (Game of Thrones, this isn’t). There are also a few darker scenes involving dark spirits and dark beings that harken back to the earlier movie’s occasional “Gothic horror” tone that could unsettle younger viewers.

Bottom Line

Like its predecessors, it can’t touch The Lord of the Rings movies for overall quality, engaging characters, or even awesome action, but The Battle of Five Armies might just be the best of the Hobbit movies. At just under two-and-a-half hours, it doesn’t feel unreasonably long, it gets the main cast of all three movies together to do some bickering, bantering, and orc-slaying, and the movie ends with 15 minutes that are pure Tolkien, almost straight out of the book. The exposition’s down, the action’s up, and it ends with a tidy little nod to The Fellowship of the Ring that die-hards will love. That’s good enough for me. J

The Hobbit: The Battle of Five Armies (2014)

Directed by Peter Jackson

Screenplay by Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens, Guillermo del Toro and Peter Jackson

Based on the novel ‘The Hobbit’ by J.R.R. Tolkien
Rated PG-13
Length: 144 minutes

EXODUS: GODS AND KINGS

Exodus: Gods and Kings

Grade: B

Directed by Ridley Scott

Starring: Christian Bale, Joel Edgerton, John Turturro, Aaron Paul, Ben Kingsley and Sigourney Weaver; also Featuring Maria Valverde as Zipporah, Hal Heweston as Gershom, Golshifteh Farahani as Nefertari and Isaac Andrews as God

Premise: Raised as a prince of Egypt alongside the rising Pharaoh, Moses discovers his roots and flees Egypt. After living in the wilderness and starting a family, he returns to Egypt following what he believes to be the call of God to lead the Hebrews out of 400 years of slavery.

Rated PG-13 for intense action and violence, scenes of peril and destruction, and intense emotional content

My initial impression of Ridley Scott’s new Bible-based epic Exodus: Gods and Kings is that, in some ways, it is almost the exact inverse of March’s Noah, this year’s other big biblical feature. That film, directed by the always-edgy Darren Aronofsky, overshot in taking massive liberties with its story, adding characters and/or changing the importance of characters, using too-obvious special effects at times, and adding a nasty domestic conflict that very nearly swallowed the film whole. I remember being disappointed—but unsurprised—at that film’s minimizing the use of God in the story, but, ultimately, Noah, whatever its flaws, ended up being a fierce, challenging, well-acted wallop of a movie that you’d be hard-pressed to forget. Being a movie geek, I may have been more impressed with it than most, but I thought Aronofsky successfully transcended the story and made a really interesting movie.  

 On the contrary, Exodus: Gods and Kings, though it features enough spectacle and mayhem to be a memorable movie, strikes me most as under-written; I had heard early reports that the film was supposed to be as long as 200 minutes (nearly three-and-a-half hours), and the finished product I saw today does feel like what’s left after some massive cutting took place. It, too, is a fierce film, so I don’t like the idea of calling it “defanged”, but instead of almost completely cutting God out of the story (the way Noah did), Exodus goes the tamest route possible, making God a boy (Isaac Andrews) with a British accent muttering vague platitudes. Other than this clear misstep, however, it is easy enough to trace the main plot points of the biblical story, and some of the big-budget furnishes are top-notch.

Ultimately, I expect Exodus: Gods and Kings will go over better with the non-believing crowd and the more accepting Bible-believing crowd, as it onscreen is closer to Scripture’s description of the Moses/Exodus story (found in Exodus chapters 2-14) than Noah was to its source material (Genesis chapters 6-9). And while it is a visual marvel (as I expected) and has some spectacular sequences and a few impressive performances, this movie gives short shrift to most of its cast and registers as a largely emotion-free zone.

Plot

**While the following synopsis may largely seem a pretty straightforward summary of Exodus 2-14, the movie makes many tweaks those familiar with Scripture will notice; a friend of mine has suggested that the best way to approach big-budget Hollywood takes on Bible stories (like this and Noah) is to go in not thinking to oneself that it is Bible story, simply a movie story. This is good and sound advice.**

For nearly 400 years, the proud, powerful kingdom of Egypt has held the nation of Hebrews captive, forcing them to work, day after day, hauling brick and stone and mortar and building massive monuments, temples and pyramids. With this enslaved labor force working constantly, Egypt’s power has grown world-wide. When they’re threatened by the more nearby, more barbaric nation of Hittites, Egypt’s ruling pharaoh, Seti (John Turturro) dispatches his legions to crush their armies. Led by the prince and heir to the throne, Ramses (Joel Edgerton), and his commanding general and sort-of brother, Moses (Christian Bale), Egypt’s armies route the Hittites and come back to Egypt with its two leaders the toast of the town. However, all is not quite peaceful—Ramses senses his increasingly-sickly father favors Moses for his wit and wisdom, and has grown jealous, even though the throne will be his. Moses, however, is fully supportive of his brother and doesn’t want the throne. One day, when Seti gives Ramses the by-the-numbers job of visiting some of the overseers of the workforce and hearing about the conditions of the slaves, Moses offers to take it instead to spare his “brother” embarrassment. But, down amongst the slaves, Moses hears some troubling things—namely, that he is not a prince of Egypt, but was born a Hebrew and was lucky to be accepted and raised by pharaoh’s daughter rather than drowned in the Nile River like most other Hebrew boys of the period. After hearing this, Moses kills two Egyptian soldiers in a panic, then, when Ramses threatens to mutilate a Hebrew servant, Moses stops him. For these actions, Moses is banished.

Moses’ wanderings in the desert eventually lead him to Midian, where he falls in with a tribe of shepherds and simple merchants, marries a beautiful young woman named Zipporah (Maria Valverde), has a son, and lives a life of peace as a shepherd. After nearly a decade, however, while high on a mountain watching his herd, Moses has a vision of a burning bush and a figure speaking to him with unsettling authority and knowledge. He gets the message: go back to Egypt and free your people. Leaving his wife and son is a wrench, but Moses goes. Of course, at first, Ramses, now the leader of Egypt, laughs off Moses’s claims of having met God and his assertions that the slaves need to be freed. Even Moses’ mobilizing of many of the Hebrew men into a lethal army doesn’t truly trouble Pharaoh. But then things start happening—things no man could do. The Nile River turns to blood, killing fish and crops. Egypt is flooded first with frogs, then with flies; lice infect animals and people, painful boils and infections spring up on people’s flesh, livestock die by the thousands, hail pours out of the sky, and Egypt’s food supply dwindles. Things eventually become so horrific that Ramses tells Moses and the Hebrews to go, but, once they’re out of Egypt, he can’t resist the idea of running them down and slaughtering them with his army.

What Works?

As you might have expected from an epic based on a story with these sorts of events—and in this day and age—Exodus: Gods and Kings is a visual wonder. There are some magnificent scenes, from huge panoramic shots that give you an idea of the size of the kingdom of Egypt and the size of some of the monuments built, to epic scenes of armies on horseback charging down hills and across fields and along mountainsides. And the plagues, of course—I mentioned most of them; as you might expect, Exodus is at its most epic and unsettlingly awesome when it’s depicting each of the horrendous things God brought down on Egypt. If you’ve ever thought a swarm of flies would be merely pesky, not truly intimidating or scary, you’ll change your mind if you watch Gods and Kings. Ditto the swarms of locusts. Frogs, lice, boils, dying livestock…these scenes are a succession of gut punches. And yet these are the moments a person can somewhat accept. Exodus’ emotional peak concerns “a great cry” going up from house to house as the calamities finally become truly personal for the proud Egyptian people. And then there’s the great finale. Contrary to what the trailers seemed to show, Scott does not turn this story into a Hebrews-versus-Egyptians battle royale, but the scene of thousands of Egyptian chariots racing in, only to be utterly demolished by collapsing walls of Red Sea water, is as breathtaking and astonishing as it’s ever been previously imagined or depicted.

 Like Russell Crowe was as Noah, Christian Bale is the right actor for the monumental role of Moses. As audience surely know by now, this chameleonic actor is capable of almost anything in terms of voice, attitude and characterization, and there’s no denying his physical durability, either. While this won’t rank particularly high on this decorated actor’s list of Best Performances, the movie needs an actor of his magnetism at the helm, and he makes it truly work. The actor’s constant physical changes in his roles (like the massive weight loss for The Machinist, the burly physique of The Dark Knight and the slobby bod of the con artist in American Hustle) is also a plus in a role that demands a lot of physical change—it doesn’t throw an audience to see Bale with an increasingly-bushy beard, or even in old-age makeup and hair.

As his opposite number, Ramses, Joel Edgerton does fine work. Though Edgerton plays one of the leads in one of my favorite films (2011’s MMA drama Warrior), I was somewhat skeptical of his casting as an Egyptian heir, if only for the accent and constant makeup it would require this white Australian actor to pull off the part. But after seeing the film, I can’t picture anyone else as Ramses. Edgerton’s physicality is also convincing, and he brings a significant presence to all the weightiest scenes, including one in which he cradles the dead body of his infant son in his arms. His final moments onscreen here are also some indelible images.

What Doesn’t Work?

I mentioned the writing. That’s my main criticism. The meat-and-potatoes scenes of this movie (i.e. the plagues, the Red Sea crossing, etc…) were always going to be grand movie fare, but, as mentioned, it’s not hard to tell this was once a much longer movie that was cut down. It’s not necessarily to the film’s detriment that it starts with Moses as an adult, unlike most other screen versions of the story, but it hustles along, short-cutting other major characters at every turn. Other than a Viceroy/work labor master and John Turturro’s Seti, no other major character seems to have more than a handful of lines. You might miss all the lines spoken by recognizable actors like Ben Kingsley, Sigourney Weaver and Aaron Paul while you’re taking a noisy sip of your theater soda. And you’d be hard-pressed to remember exactly which bearded fellow was Aaron, Moses’ older brother and the original Hebrew high priest, or which dark-haired, dark-eyed woman in rags was Miriam, Moses’ sister who once set him adrift in a basket to save his life. And while luminous actress Maria Valverde gets a few short, sweet intimate moments as Zipporah, Moses’ wife, nothing of their relationship is depicted other than a few shy smiles.

There’s also the matter of The Burning Bush scene. I couldn’t possibly have imagined it would be so feebly done as it is here. It’s even set up well, with Moses stuck in a mudslide so about all he can see is the burning bush—that’s not biblical, but it’s interesting. But then…I didn’t exactly expect Morgan Freeman to embody God (like he famously did in 2003 and 2007’s Bruce and Evan Almighty films) but the sight of little Isaac Andrews, as mentioned, seems like a really toothless, corny way to try and appease those who come into the theater not believing in God. Rather than get anyone fired up about the gender-of-God debate, they just went with a little kid in a British accent, and who’s gonna freak out about that, huh? Well, I will. Couldn’t they have just gone with a disembodied voice? The Prince of Egypt—1998’s award-winning Dreamworks animated version of this story, and one of my all-time favorite movies—used a disembodied voice (Val Kilmer’s) to read God’s lines, and that worked just fine. If Scott and the other filmmakers couldn’t stomach facing the gender-of-God debate, they might as well have also gone with a disembodied voice; I can’t imagine too many people getting upset about that (shoot, I just watched It’s A Wonderful Life, the plot of which is set in motion by a scene of echoing voices conversing in the cosmos, and that movie’s a classic). Anyway, not only is the kid a disconcerting cop-out, but the very famous conversation between Moses and God at the site of the bush is watered down to something I can’t even remember, but I know it wasn’t quality or worth remembering. If there was a time to adhere to what’s written in the Bible, that was it.

Content

I believe I’ve mentioned…Thanks to just one of its particular plagues, Exodus: Gods and Kings probably contains more onscreen blood than every other PG-13 movie ever made. The rest of the plagues (flies, frogs, boils, dying livestock, locusts, etc…) may not be bloody, but, as I mentioned, when depicted on a large, biblical scale, they aren’t exactly walks in the park, either. There’s also some fairly straight-forward hand-to-hand combat in various fight scenes—you see the points of swords sticking out the fronts/backs/sides of people who’ve just been impaled. There’s no nudity (of course—this is based on a Bible story) and no cursing that I can remember, but this movie, while not nearly as edgy and scary as Noah, is a tough PG-13.

Bottom Line

If you go in expecting a to-the-word depiction of the Moses story, you’ll be disappointed, but Exodus: Gods and Kings is a pretty solid epic. The depiction of God is slightly ridiculous, and the Burning Bush scene is almost laughable, but there is some great acting and God’s infamous plagues are brought to vivid, astounding, awesome life. And the Red Sea scene? WOW. Unlike the darker, scarier Noah, I can say I would definitely watch this movie again, even though it’s underwritten. But The Prince of Egypt is still definitely my favorite movie version of this story.

Exodus: Gods and Kings (2014)

Directed by Ridley Scott
Based on the biblical story depicted in Exodus 2-14
Screenplay by Adam Cooper, Bill Collage, Jeffrey Caine and Steve Zaillian
Rated PG-13
Length: 150 minutes