Raiders of the Lost Ark is my favorite film of all time, just eeking out The Shawshank Redemption, The Empire Strikes Back, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly and Children of Men. It's one of those movies that just manages to hit all of the right notes at all of the right times, and even during the slow scenes, the pacing is so expertly done that it never feels like it drags. It has characters I love, moments I will always remember, music I can never forget, and the epitome of what a strong female lead should be in films (before Kingdom of the Crystal Skull ruined her at least). It has every element I could want in a film, action, adventure, romance, comedy, horror, suspense, and an overarching story that simply boils down to good vs evil.
In my mind, it's a perfect film, and it has mastered the hardest trait for a movie, it has transcended time. If you pop in the Blu-Ray of Raiders, it looks just as good today as it did the day it was made over thirty years ago, a feat that even the greatest films in history rarely achieve. Every single scene is a masterpiece, and every scene can be a case study for film students in how to properly light, direct, score, and edit a moment in film. It even manages to nail the concept of the fourth act by giving us a brilliant additional twenty minutes or so after what could have easily been the resolution of the film on the ship (namely the opening of the Ark). Despite all these amazing moments in film history however, one scene stands out in my mind as better than the rest, the map room scene.
I can't describe what makes this scene resound so powerfully for me, it doesn't have any deeper meaning, any important character arcs, or any groundbreaking special effects, but it still stands out to this day as one of those moments in film that everyone knows and loves. It's just a scene of a guy standing around with a stick, and yet it's been parodied countless times, and many people like myself hold it in regards as probably the greatest scenes in film history. It just does everything right, and uses a score that still gives me goosebumps when I hear it to this day. There isn't much more I can say about how brilliant this film is, but if a picture is worth a thousand words, then this scene is easily worth a million.
This week's entry is a bit of an oddity. Not only does it involve two separate scenes that revolve around the same line (one comedic and one surprisingly grounded), it comes from the lighthearted comedy Galaxyquest. For those of you who haven't had the privilege of seeing the film, Galaxyquest is a perfectly balanced satire of Star Trek, a lighthearted action comedy that is a better Star Trek film than most Star Trek films. This film excels at setting up story premises that continue to pay in masterful ways throughout the flick, and the most obvious example is the "Grapthar's Hammer" gag.
The running gag through the film is that Alan Rickman's character (a respected actor who is a thinly veiled reference to Leonard Nemoy's Spock) has grown disgusted with the character he played in the short lived sci-fi series Galaxyquest, going so far as to develop a visceral hatred of his famous tagline "By Grapthar's Hammer, you shall be avenged". His hatred leads to one of the funniest scenes in film history (in my opinion at least), his use of the line to hock the opening of an electronics chain store, seen in the second example of the contained clip. There's so much disdain and bridled rage in his delivery that it's one of the greatest comedic lines in film, and I laugh uncontrollably every... single... time... I see it.
But the real highlight of this running gag isn't meant to be humorous, it's meant to be heartfelt and powerful, and in that regard it's absolutely perfect. The scene comes when Dr. Lazarus's most loyal soldier is mortally wounded, and in this moment he chooses to finally recite his famous line for his dying friend (in the final . Sure, it's an old and oft used gimmick in film, but there's so much more going on in this scene and in this film than just a standard gimmick.
First of all, you have world class actor Alan Rickman delivering what is essentially the most important line in the film. Anyone else could have probably made it work, but Rickman's delivery sets it worlds apart from a normal delivery. Next you have the idea that this guy has not only decided to revisit a line he has come to hate, he has rediscovered the true meaning and power of those words. It's just so simple and well executed that it turns a simple scene into something so much more, and despite it's simplicity this type of setup in a film is almost a lost art and is so rarely used.
In past reviews I have talked about how important it is to set up payoffs in film, and this movie in particular shows how properly doing so can transcend a typical scene into something flat out beautiful, even in a comedy.
Quentin Tarantino films are like pizza, everybody has a personal favorite, and even the worst ones are still pretty damn awesome. The direction, the cinematography, the mix of old Hollywood film tricks mixed with new Hollywood, and, of course, the dialogue make every Tarantino film nothing short of a work of art. Statistically speaking, any Tarantino film is better than 99% of anything you'll find from Hollywood these days, and my personal favorite (by a very narrow margin) would have to be Kill Bill: Volume 2.
But of all the wonderful scenes from KB: V2, of all the fights, speeches, and emotional spikes this film throws at you, the one that sticks out to me the most is the trailer fight scene. Quite simply, this scene makes my list because it is abl to seamlessly blend graceful fighting with sheer brutality, not an easy feat for a Hollywood film. This fight perfectly encapsulates a battle between two people with nothing to lose, nothing is held back, and every dirty trick imaginable is utilized to stay alive, and still somehow manages to inject a sense of humor and silliness in the midst of it all.
What really makes this scene stand out however, is Tarantino's trademark mixture of old school kung fu fight camera tricks mixed with his personal touches to make the scene unique and original. Cameras mounted to nontraditional weaponry (such as Uma Thurman's feet) mixed with snap zooms of old create a dizzying effect that could make the audience feel just as flustered and out of breath as the two combatants. Partner this with Tarantino's tried and true techniques (such as the comic book like split frames) and you have a recipe for what could be described as a perfect fight scene.
Movie fights rely heavily on transporting the audience into the scene and making them feel what the characters are feeling, and reel when the character does the same. Well planned camera techniques and proper pacing can accomplish this in a relatively simple manner, as demonstrated in such examples as the ninja attack from The Last Samurai, the lightsaber battle from The Empire Strikes Back or any fight from Return of the Dragon. However, much like a first person shooter, this technique is simple to learn, but near impossible to master, and Quentin Tarantino has proven that he is one of the few directors in the history of film to have done so.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
Sometimes in a movie, if you know what you're doing, you can accomplish a great deal with very little. Films like Star Wars, Jaws, and Halloween became blockbuster smashes despite touting very little in funding or big name stars, and with a talented director, a good crew, and competent actors, you can make fantastic films that resound with the audience better than all the CGI dick punching robots in the Transformers franchise can. Nowhere is this philosophy more apparent than in on particular scene from the Sergio Leone classic The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly: The Mexican Standoff.
This is literally a scene where three guys stand around doing nothing for almost five minutes and it's still one of the tensest, most exciting, and most brilliant scenes in the history of cinema. The subtle looks between Tuco and Blondie tell more of a story than all the dialogue in the world could ever accomplish, and the musical score conveys more power and exhilaration than most action scenes from any summer blockbuster can. Remember a few weeks ago when I said that a scene is 60% music, well this score proves how a good scene can really be amped up with some good, fitting music.
Here is an example of how proper film making can turn what is more or less an action-less scene and turn it into something thrilling and enthralling. If you were to try to describe this scene to someone who has never seen the actual film it would go something like "It's basically a scene where three guys stare at each other for about five minutes and then one of them shoots another one". It sounds awful, but in the proper context it comes across perfect because something so simple accomplishes so much in the long run of the film. It's an action that leads to something, and it harkens back to my first article on the new blog (http://gump-o-rama.blogspot.com/2011/08/my-thoughts-on-action.html) about how every action should have a purpose.
William Shakespeare once wrote that "Brevity is the soul of wit", and while he was actually talking about the written word, this philosophy can apply just as well to properly and simply directed scenes in movies. Keeping it simple can help accomplish miracles when it comes to conveying emotional associations in film, and it's about high time Hollywood begins to remember that.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
Godzilla, like Star Trek, is one of the only nerd properties
that I only have a passing knowledge of. I don’t know the difference between
Rodan and Mothra, I don’t know how the Oxygen bomb killed him in the first
film, and I don’t know which Kaiju it was that had the ability to communicate
with humans. All I remember is the basic films from my childhood, those classic
Technicolor or black and white monster films, and I remember how they were
constructed to play to both children and adults hearts.
In that regard, and in that spirit… this movie totally
knocked it out of the park.
Now don’t get me wrong, the film certainly flaws, but when
you view in the context of what a Kaiju monster movie should be, I can’t really
find much to complain about when it comes to this film. I was so invested in
the spectacle occurring on screen (especially during the non-stop and epic
third act) that I really couldn’t care less that Elizabeth Olsen’s character
was barely more than a cardboard cutout of “wife in peril”. This is one of
those examples of film that sets out to accomplish a very particular goal, and
not a whole lot else. It’s the special teams or designated hitters of movies,
and in that regard it’s damn near perfect.
What do I mean by damn near perfect? Well let’s look at some
staples of the monster movie genre that this movie does or doesn’t accomplish.
The Reveal-Most
monster movies these days seem really anxious or excited to show off all the
goods way to early into the film. Typically, a commonly accepted practice is to
not show the monster until around the end of the first act or just before the
halfway point of the movie. This allows the film to build up tension from the
anticipation of wanting to see the monster, but not being allowed to. This
tactic was employed masterfully (and accidentally) in Jaws, and it has
been a staple of film since then.
Godzilla doesn’t just adhere to this rule, it flat
out perfects it. The reveal itself is placed at just the right moment in the
film, and when it does finally occur it is a slow, drawn out reveal instead of
a simple snap zoom or edit that seems to have become the staple of modern
movies. As much as I really ended up liking Pacific Rim I always felt
that the film showing the Kaiju in the first ten seconds of the film was a bit
of a mistake. I understand that this film is more about the Jaegers than a
typical monster movie, but I think it would have been more effective to just
show the devastation and news clips in the beginning and save the Kaiju reveal
itself for the first time it comes out of the water in front of the fishing
boat.
The Mystery-Perhaps
the most surprising thing about this movie is that despite all the press,
rumors, and stories I had heard about this film, it was absolutely NOT the film
I was expecting to see. This movie has had one of the most brilliant and
successful ad campaigns of the last twenty years, and despite all the fanfare
and speculation surrounding it, I legitimately didn’t see a lot of what
happened on screen coming. All things considered, it’s a nice change of pace,
especially considering how most trailers nowadays seem to be obsessed with
accidentally or intentionally giving away key plot points of the film.
This works as a massive advantage to the film, as another
staple of monster films is in the mystery, research, and discovery of the
monster’s motivations. This film does a great job of accomplishing this, and I
should really warn you that from this point on my review is going to be quite
spoiler heavy.
Ken Watanabe does a good job with the time he has on screen
explaining the possibility that maybe Godzilla isn’t the destructive force of
terror that the trailers have made him out to be, that maybe instead he is
natures’ bounty hunter instead of natures’ weapon. He seems to have a respect
for the monster as much as he has a fear of it, and in this way he reminds me
of Charlie Days’ character from Pacific Rim, just not quirky. As much as
I liked him though I felt like the film could have used more of these scenes.
You know, the old monster movie laboratory scenes where a bunch of
scientists
are standing around in a room that looks like this:
And always seemed to have a low hum in the background that suspiciously
sounded like Aunt Beru’s food processor thingy from Star Wars.
But perhaps what I love best about this sense of confusion
and desperation that is present in the film is the fact that we never have that
overused stereotype of military vs. scientist mindset. The military is always
using the advice of the scientists, and at one point “Admiral Expository
Dialogue” flat out tells Watanabe that if he has any ideas better than theirs
that now is the time to voice it. It just plays well in the film, and as a
result the mystery of Godzilla and the MUTOs are that much more interesting.
The Characters-Having
the monster be the main spectacle of a monster movie has always been a tried
and true staple of the genre, but so has developing the characters in the
limited time they have on screen. This is the only staple that I believe the
film stumbled a bit with.
I already mentioned how the characters stood out a bit as
cardboard cutouts and they needed some more time for development, but I think
that removing about ten minutes of action from the film to lend to Aaron Taylor
Johnson and Elizabeth Olsen would have gone a long way towards making these
characters more relatable. Even more disappointing was the idea of (and again… SPOILERS) killing off Bryan Cranston’s
character so early in the film, especially when he was established to be the
most interesting character with the most depth at that point. Just because the
audience didn’t anticipate his death didn’t mean it was a good idea to include
it.
All the characters in the film, despite their somewhat
rushed stories, were surprisingly likeable though. I especially empathized with
Johnson, who was just trying to get home and seemed to have the absolute worst
luck on the planet. Johnson goes to Japan, the MUTO chooses that moment to wake
up. Johnson goes to Honolulu, the MUTO follows him. Johnson hops a train to get
home, the MUTO finds him there. Finally the guy just has to jump out of an
airplane to get back to his home city, maybe the scientists were wrong and the
MUTOs just wanted Kick-Ass’ autograph instead of nuclear material.
In addition to this, I couldn't help but notice a gradual withdrawal from the characters to the story of the monsters. At first I believed this factor to be an oversight or side effect of the film, but the more I thought about it, I think this was intentional. Notice how this withdrawal occurs in conjunction with the increasing importance of the Kaiju's influence on the corresponding cities. I also noticed there was a very apparent Spielbergian influence present in the film (the main character was named Brody, hellooooooo?), and just like in Jaws there was a gradual withdrawal very similar to that film.
I would also like to point out that whoever was in charge of
Johnson’s training in the military deserves a promotion and a medal, because
JESUS is this guy trained for every imaginable scenario. It’s established that
he was EOD in the Navy (more or less a military bomb squad guy), but suddenly
he has knowledge of infantry tactics, antiquated detonators, and even HALO
jumps, the most complicated and dangerous jump in the world.
A lot of other little things impressed me about the film as
well, namely the look of the monsters. Godzilla looks flat out awesome in this
movie, he’s huge and he’s scary, and he looks a little like a cross between the
classic Godzilla look and a grizzly bear. But then there’s a hint of something
else added to his face, something mammalian that helps lend a sense of emotion
to him and lets us relate to what is going on in his face. Then we have the MUTOs,
big, ugly, scary insect looking things that seem to be there to just tear shit
up to get at the gooey nuclear waste they so want. There is nothing in those
eyes, just a fiery sort of glow that conveys pure hatred.
The pacing of the film was great, if not a little bit
rushed, and the cinematography was absolutely perfect for what a monster movie
should have been. They also nailed what made Godzilla so awesome in the first
place, sheer unbridled power and unknown surprises. I started giggling like a
child when I saw that tail start glowing, because I knew the awesomeness that
was about to follow, and oh boy, it did not disappoint. I also loved the HALO
jump itself. It was scary and exhilarating, and even after watching it two
dozen times in the trailer it still manages to be awesome (you’ll understand
why when you see the finished product. The music is scary and tense, and lets
you feel the fear and severity of the situation at hand. I loved the opening
scenes, both in the caverns and the nuclear power plant.
Bryan Cranston nailed
the painful loss of a loved one with a sort of effortless grace that reminds me
why I think he is going to be one of the biggest things to hit film in the last
decade. I also loved when he and Johnson were going through an abandoned part
of Japan, it was beautiful and terrifying at the same time to see the slow
decay of such a previously vibrant part of a city. Finally, I liked David Strathain
in his role of the commanding admiral of the situation. Even though he was
there mostly to spout expository dialogue, he did it with enough grace and
talent that it made something out of something that could have been a thankless
role.
There were certainly some other things I didn’t like about
the film however, namely that there was just a bit too much action. Like I said
earlier, if they had cut about fifteen minutes from the action and tacked on
fifteen minutes of “science talk” this film would have been pretty much
perfect. The pacing was a little rushed at some points, whisking us from point
A to point B with little explanation, but it’s handled nowhere near as poorly
as it is in the Transformers films. The film also had not one, but two
instances where characters were able to magically find who they needed in a sea
of faces. Finally, one last thing that bugged me a lot more than it should have
was the caption on the bottom of the jumbo-tron at the end of the film. I won’t
ruin what it says, but I would have liked it a lot more if it had said “____ __ ________ ALIVE!” instead of “____ __
________ SAVIOR OF OUR CITY!”, the audience doesn’t need to have it pounded into
their face how Godzilla wasn’t the bad guy of the film, we can figure it out.
These are minor complaints of course, because overall the
film was exactly what it needed to be. These small distractions didn’t really
detract from the spectacle on film because I was too enthralled in the fact
that we were finally getting a Godzilla movie done right in America!
This is the
monster movie we have been waiting for.
This is Godzilla.
And the best part of all? Ferris Bueller was nowhere in
sight.
8.5 out of 10
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
Many of you young ones may not remember this, but there was a time when every other film in Hollywood didn't have a twist ending. There are few things more exciting in film than a well executed twist, as it not only turns your predictions and expectations of a film upside down, but wraps up open questions and unexplained portions of a film in the blink of an eye. Extremely well done twists have the added bonus of making you want to watch a film a second time to see it in a new light, like in films such as The Prestige, The Sixth Sense, Psycho, and Fight Club. But despite all these great examples, the best twist I can think of in a film comes from the Bryan Singer independent film The Usual Suspects.
20 YEAR OLD SPOILER INCOMING!
Everything in this film so far has led up to Keaton being the mastermind of the entire operation and the alter-ego of infamous crime lord Keyser Soze. The entire film has revolved around revealing this mysterious man's true identity, and when Baer explains that Keaton has done this trick before when he left the police force it seems like it's only natural that he pull the same trick twice. This goes hand in hand with the earlier (and now legendary quote) "The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist".
But then, out of the BLUE, we get this scene that totally changes our perception of what we have been seeing. It's an absolutely brilliant scene of storytelling and revelation, and while there maybe better twists in film (heck, even The Sixth Sense), you would be hard pressed to find a better filmed twist. It's so basically shot that it's brilliance in its' simplicity, and it allows the revelation to come to the viewer without cramming it in their face ad nauseam. The simple score underlying Verbal subtly losing his limp in the street is almost a textbook example of proper framing combined with a fitting score, and the slow coffee mug drop is still five of my favorite seconds in film for this same reason.
My one complaint with the scene (if you could call it a complaint) is that the addition of the overlying dialogue almost spells it out a little too much for the audience. It isn't nearly as irritating as the "micro-flashbacks" that accompany most flashbacks in film these days (Sixth Sense's twist is pretty awful in this regard), but it still detracts from the scene being even more quietly resounding. It reminds me of when they made Alex Proyas add that scene at the beginning of Dark City that completely explains the answer to who The Strangers are in the film, and I wonder if maybe there is an edit out there of this scene without the dubbed over lines. Regardless of this small problem though, this scene is still a masterpiece, and stands out as the coup de grace in a nearly flawless crime drama.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
I have a love/hate relationship with the Omaha Beach invasion scene from Saving Private Ryan. On one hand, it's arguably the best, most brutal, realistic, and unflinching battle scenes in the history of war films. On the other hand, it began countless trends in Hollywood that are now so common that it's getting f**king annoying. But while these trends are overused and stagnant in most Hollywood films nowadays, at the time Saving Private Ryan was made these advancements and tricks were flat out groundbreaking, paving the way for countless directors to take these tricks and try to pass them off as their own. Sadly, it's a trend in Hollywood that will never go away (just think of all the movies that featured "bullet time" after The Matrix was released).
When Saving Private Ryan was released, Hollywood had more or less perfected camera technology. Specialized lenses eliminated the most stubborn of lens flare, internal servos and gyros allowed steady-cams to collect a perfectly level picture despite constant jostling, and digital film cameras allowed a much broader spectrum of colors to permeate the screen. So when Steven Spielberg wanted to recreate a scene from war without the use of any of these camera features, a lot of people thought he had lost his mind.
But the gambit paid off, and in the end we received a scene that is just as gut-punchingly brutal to watch today as it was when it was released. Not eliminating the lens flare of the scene added a depth of realism to the battle, especially since it would be a common sight as soldiers were emerging from the freezing waters. The elimination of the steady-cam created an effect known today (for better or worse) as shaky-cam, conveying a frantic sense of confusion to the viewer which creates an emotional link with the scared, panicked soldier on D-Day without saying a word. Nowadays Hollywood uses this trick non-stop, even in places where it doesn't belong. The Hunger Games even uses this effect in the opening scene, when Katniss is just walking through a field!
But most daring of all was Spielberg's decision to de-saturate the color spectrum to create a film that had a sepia toned look and splashes of water and blood occasionally obscuring the shot. By doing so through the painstaking switching of lenses and cameras Spielberg was able to create a movie that looked half Hollywood, and half documentary, adding a level of realism never before scene in a movie. Nowadays you can see the same effect in every "stylized" Hollywood film through the use of computer effects labs, but back in the day it was innovative and unheard of, creating a scene that has aged as well and resounds as strongly with the audience as it did the day it was released.
The entire film is a work of art, but this scene in particular stands out in peoples' minds as the high point of the movie. And while apparently Saving Private Ryan lost the Oscar that year to Shakespeare in Love, the test of time (and common sense) reminds us that it is still the superior movie for countless reasons.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
There's really a lot to like about The Dark Knight. It's easily the best film in the Dark Knight trilogy, and features Heath Ledger in a role that has become legendary despite Jack Nicholson playing it decades earlier. One scene however, is so well shot, so well executed , and so all around perfect, that it rises to the top of all the great scenes featured in this trilogy... the interrogation.
Like Vader's redemption from last week, a lot of the greatness in this scene stems from the villain utterly stealing the show with his delivery of his lines. This is a big boon in itself, but what makes this aspect so important in this film is that in doing so Heath Ledger has also subconsciously let the audience know that the Joker is the one in charge of the situation despite his apparent seat of weakness in the scene. This is important because it subliminally allows the audience to still be threatened and intimidated by a clown in handcuffs, not an easy feat in any sort of film.
Notice how Christopher Nolan took a page from the Francis Ford Coppola and initially has the Joker hidden in the shadows like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now to convey how they are almost one with the darkness:
But then Nolan expands on this idea and has the light come on with the entrance of Batman, allowing the viewer to realize that Batman represents the light and order as opposed to Joker's darkness and chaos, a yin to his yang, a battle of symbolism if you will.
Next we have the brilliant dialogue between the two juggernauts on screen, and we begin to see how fractured Joker's psyche and sense of morality really is. But what really kicks this scene into high gear is when Batman finally snaps and begins beating him down, and this is the first time (and only time) that we see Batman truly powerless against someone. He has met someone who can beat him one way or another, and despite all his strength and skills we see him unable to save the people who need saving and forced into a choice he swore he would never make.
Finally, we have the score, a slowly building violin score that plays whenever the Joker comes on screen. Nolan has stated that he chose this score because it represented the growing madness inherent in the Joker's character, his growing wishes to simply see the world burn. It's a perfect piece for this character, and when coupled with this scenes' escalation of crisis it really places it over the top to get my number 8 scene of all time.
Return of the Jedi is a bit of a conundrum for me. On one hand, I consider it by far the weakest film in the Star Wars trilogy because of its' strange choices in film making such as replacing Wookies with Ewoks, the entire first act, and more of less neutering the awesomeness that is Han Solo. On the other, it contains most of my favorite scenes in the series, such as the best space battle in the series, any scene with Ian Mcdiarmid, and the final showdown between Luke and Vader. But while I could have probably comprised this entire list of scenes just from Star Wars films (Han Solo saving Luke at the Death Star, the Battle of Hoth, Darth Vader telling Luke he is his father, etc.), my favorite scene in the trilogy revolves around Darth Vader's redemption scene.
This scene is so emotional and there is so much going on in it that it's hard to even put into words how utterly brilliant it is, but I'll try. First of all, we have Ian Mcdiarmid completely stealing the show with every line of dialogue he utters. This scene has more memorable lines in it than most of the rest of the Star Wars trilogy combined, and his delivery is so evil and perfect that his brief appearance in the series has earned him a place as one of the greatest big screen villains of all time.
Next we have the music, and while last week I pointed out that the lack of real music amplified the power of the scene, in this case we have the opposite effect. The score is perfectly set to what is happening on screen, and punctuates every point with an appropriate pitch or tune. Just listen to that crescendo that follows "Now young Skywalker... you will die". For the life of me I seriously can't think of a more perfectly fitting score in the history of film.
Now it's hard to deny that the prequels have completely ruined the concept of the Emperor using lightning against Luke, but the first time I saw this film and saw that lightning shoot out of Palpatines' fingers I was in complete awe. Here I thought Luke and Vader were the epitome of what the force could accomplish, but now we have this new threat who is able to literally command the elements at his whim to torture our hero. I may have been seven at the time, but to this day I still remember that this was the first time I ever felt uncomfortable watching a movie. Lukes' torture went on so long that right before Vader gave the Emperor the old heave ho I just wanted Luke to die so he would be out of his misery. Whether you love or hate the Star Wars film, you can't deny that this scene really created a visceral reaction in the audience.
Finally we have Vader himself, filled with emotional conflict between the choice he is being forced to make: either side with a man who has been his friend and mentor for the last twenty years, or save the son he never knew he had and who represents everything he hated in his former life. Not being able to see his face underneath the mask makes the scene even more powerful, since we can only imagine the emotional struggle occurring on his face. and while the recent addition of a "No... NOOOO!" in recent editions has tarnished this silent moment, it still remains one of the greatest redemption scenes of one of the greatest big screen villains of all time.
I enjoy sending my readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
Quints' speech about the USS Indianapolis is (in my mind at least) the greatest monologue ever caught on film, but not for the reasons you may think. Yes, the scene is brilliant in the fact that the simple act of a guy talking manages to be mesmerizing, creepy, and legendary all at the same time, but it's the things you don't really notice about the scene that makes it stand out above all other monologues in film history.
As Quint delves into the ghosts that have haunted him since World War II, we begin to glimpse into the dark obsession that will eventually lead him to his demise, made even more terrifying by the fact that he knows this will likely be the outcome of his hunt. In doing so Spielberg makes Quints' obsession transform him into a modern day incarnation of Captain Ahab from Moby Dick, so whether you know it or not the film has just made a literary link that can resound quietly and effectively with the audience.
Not only is Shaws' delivery brilliant, but something that should be noted is that this scene is largely improvised. Everyone knows the nightmare that "Bruce" the shark caused the film, and filming this scene was just a way for Spielberg to buy time for the maintenance crew to get her up and running again. The fact that this man could pull this out and create a scene that will go down in history pretty much on a whim is a testament to the acting skills of Robert Shaw. The occasional shots back to Brody and Hooper show them just as transfixed and terrified by this dark story as we the audience are.
They say that a scene is 60% music and 40% what's happening on screen (we will further discuss this in next week's scene recap), but in this film the only music we hear is a soft, haunting classical that doesn't even enter until about halfway through the scene. This delivery is so brilliant, so well shot, and so timeless however, that I believe it would be just as effective and haunting if there had been no music at all!
There may be other, better monologues out there in film, but the combination of Spielberg's direction, Shaws' performance, and the overall tone of this scene places it as my personal favorite in film history.
Oh Hollywood, what has become of your greatest on screen bad
guys? Russians have lost all relevancy
since the end of the Cold War, terrorists are offensive, zombies have become
completely overused, and Russian terrorist zombies are just too high concept for
the likes of Hollywood. If only we could find a new villain for American and
world-wide audiences to pick on.
But wait! We have! Finally, a vile, despicable group of
people that Hollywood film producers and directors can rally behind, a monster
that surely all people must understand is the true villain in this world… this
asshole.
I really try to keep politics out of my film blog, but I’m
breaking this rule this one time because if you’re like me, you have probably
noticed a growing trend in Hollywood films and television shows of making
soldiers, marines, and the U.S. military in general the bad guys. Even worse,
this trend is exacerbated by the idea that the reasons for their dastardly
plans stem from either some form of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, combat
experience, or insanity caused by a war they fought in. This trend has been
growing exponentially in the last few years, but one film in particular has
brought it to a head in such an over the top manner that I had to write about
it, Liam Neeson’s newest action film Non-Stop.
Now I’m a big Liam Neeson fan, but shortly after this film
came out I began to notice that a lot of people on Facebook were telling people
to stay clear of this film and not to support it. The most curious thing about
this however, was that the predominant group of people telling me to avoid this film were
friends of mine from the military. So out of curiosity I decided to look up the ending
to see what was so horrible about this film. After all, I had certainly seen my
share of films portraying the military in a negative light, so how bad could this
ending really be?
What... the... piss?!?
For those of you who haven’t seen the film, please scroll
down past the END SPOILERS section if you don’t want to have the film ruined
for you. Also, please note that while this is what I have found online, it's been substantiated by several friends of mine:
SPOILERS
The villains of the film are American soldiers, one of which
was the family member of a person who died in 9/11. After they joined the
military they were “disgusted and disillusioned
by the pointless wars they were forced to fight in, and the innocent people
they were forced to murder under orders”. To top this all off, the villains
then begin spouting off the importance of the Constitution in a psycho rant,
making anyone who believes in it look like a complete asshole in the eyes of
the audience.
END
SPOILERS
At least, that was the
intention…
I don’t know how much of this
is true, but people who saw the film said that viewers in their theaters
audibly groaned or booed when the villain was revealed, which makes me feel a
little better, but how the heck did Hollywood make this the growing norm of
films and television?
Now I would have to be blind
not to realize that Hollywood is liberal central, and that any films released
with a political agenda is guaranteed to be a liberal one. The problem is that
I’m not going to the movies to see liberal agenda laden films, especially ones
where people like me are made out to be the
bad guys. I’m jus going to see an action shlock film. Does Hollywood really feel it’s that
important to pound it into my face how much of an asshole I should feel like and how I should
be ashamed of myself for not feeling the same way they do?
Now that soldiers of every
branch are being persecuted and poorly portrayed on film, I tried to think of
why Hollywood would make this decision (other than the obvious political one).
I mean, they wouldn't have tried to get away with this in the months or years directly following 9/11, so why is it acceptable now? I've come up with three main
reasons why this is OK:
1.Worldwide Marketability-In the last
decade or so there has been a massive shift in film priorities to appeal to
worldwide audiences instead of just domestic ones. Theaters have become more
accessible in all countries, so the last thing we want to do is offer up
villains that the rest of the world can’t get behind. Make the bad guy a
Russian, and Russian audiences won’t go see the movie. It’s simple economics,
and the bottom line is always the winner.
A few years ago, when they were
making the Red Dawn, the villains were originally going to be the
Chinese. The story was supposed to be that America defaulted on its’ national
debt, so the Chinese invaded in order to settle the score. It was a plot that
actually made sense, but the problem was we wouldn’t want to offend China, oh
no! So now that we couldn’t release this blasphemous idea to the world, and we
wanted China’s money, how should we go about doing this? Simple! They made the
villains North Korea! They digitally changed the flags to North Korea, a
country that doesn’t pull in any revenue for American films, and hey! Who cares
if the actors are Chinese and not North Korean, they all look the same, right
Hollywood?
Remember G.I. Joe? A
childhood memory and toy with the tagline “A real American hero”? Well… not so
much anymore. To appeal to mass audiences, the heroes in the film were changed
from American soldiers to soldiers from all over the world. G.I. changed from
Government Issue to Global… something. There’s a Chinese soldier, a middle
eastern soldier, a Brit (I think), and every other country you could think of.
All they were missing was a kid in a wheelchair! But don’t worry America, we’ll
fill out the American roster by making COBRA (the faceless villain of the G.I.
Joe franchise) an American Special Forces soldier. That should make everyone
happy, right?
One final example was Hollywood’s
obsession with changing the name of Captain America to The First
Avenger, a move that Joe Johnston had to fight tooth and nail to overrule,
at the cost of removing pretty much every American flag from the film. Iron
Man 3 had a special edition released in China, where they filmed extra
scenes without Shane Black’s knowledge and featured none of the cast. The
scenes completely re-worked the plot where Iron Man was now fighting for China,
and the Chinese were the good guys! YAAAAAAAY! The list goes on and on for
worldwide audience pandering, and if the Chinese release of Iron Man 3 is any
indication, they aren’t buying it. Which is a good thing to happen to companies
selling out their pride in their country for a couple extra bucks.
2.The Rise of Special Interest Groups-Not
long ago, ESPN editor Anthony Federico was fired for describing a basketball
player’s nine turnovers as a “chink in the armor”. Why? Because said player was
Asian superstar Jeremy Lin. And even though Anthony had used the phrase
countless times in past columns and it was a very common phrase, it didn’t
matter once Asian special interest groups got involved and demanded his job.
What does this have to do with
soldiers as movie villains? Well in the last fifteen years or so special
interest groups have made it impossible to portray any race or creed that isn’t
white as the “bad guys”, even when it makes no sense not to do so. Nowadays all
villains are white guys with militaristic and Constitutional ideals, so much so
that the frequency of this has gotten freaking obnoxious. The terrorists in White
House Down? American white guys who worked in the pentagon. The terrorists
in Die Hard 4? American white guys who worked in the Pentagon.
Terrorists are all white in films, despite the fact that almost no terrorist
acts are perpetrated by white Americans.
Now listen, I understand Muslims
have just as much right to be the good guys in a film (non-Stop accomplished
this as well). They are a vital part of the American mixing pot, and a great
majority of them are peaceful American citizens. But when seventy percent of
worldwide terrorist attacks are committed by Sunni Muslims alone (I did NOT wing
that number, that is a real statistic from the National Counter-Terrorism Center), then you can’t act surprised if the
terrorists in a Hollywood movie are portrayed as Muslim. Muslim interest groups
were angry that the bad guys in Zero-Dark-Thirty were Muslim, even
though it is based on a true story!
Racial statistics are going to be
reflected in Hollywood films, it wouldn’t make any sense not to do so if you
are telling a story based on demographics and context. Do the Right Thing
isn’t going to have a predominately white cast in it, nor is Saving Private
Ryan going to have an African American army storming the beaches of
Normandy. And while I understand that the former example is a narration of
racial inequality and the latter is a historical recount of a war, the point
shouldn’t just end there. People need to stop being so offended if they see art
mimicking life.
But nah, we don’t want to rock the
boat or take any risks would we? So where can we get a group of militarily trained people who are white,
in country, and can appease all special interest groups? If you replied
“soldiers of course!” then YOU TOO can be a Hollywood film producer. Hollywood is not a fan of the
United States soldier, so if they can offensively write them into a script to
make them the bad guys then it’s win-win! And they do it out of cowardice for
the next reason.
3.We Make Easy Targets-If a director was
to grow a pair of balls and make a protected group of people the villains in a
film for statistical accuracy, I would have mad respect for them. I would also
quickly accept that their days in Hollywood were over because their job would
be gone in seconds. When upset, special interest groups love to resort to mob
tactics in order to get what they want, a move that usually works, but one
group of people can be labeled monsters by everyone and don’t have the ability to
fight back… the military.
You see, where most special
interest groups don’t believe in Freedom of Speech if it hurts their feelings,
almost everyone in the military has accepted this point as a necessary cost of
freedom. It’s why when people create Facebook pages like “F**k the Troops” you
will notice that a surprisingly small number of people demanding that the page
be taken down are military. It’s where you get the saying “While I don’t agree
with what you say, I will fight to the death for your right to say it”, it’s
just a small part of a greater good.
So when Hollywood releases films
with stories and messages like “evil military are punished for things they did
in Iraq”, you never ever see military groups boycotting the picture or
demanding the director’s job. We understand that film is an art, and art is
protected under freedom of speech. The few who do actually protest the film are
often met with the cowardly response “Oh, I see you don’t believe in what you
fight for”, which is also the front contender in the field of “Quotes that make
me want to punch someone in the face until they look like Clint Howard.”
Ladies…
Now as if picking on the military isn’t bad enough, shows
and films have a tendency to make Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder the reason for
the soldier to be so evil the first place. It’s like a serious medical handicap
has given Hollywood Carte Blanche to make soldiers as vile as humanly possible,
all under the guise that they are doing it “to show how hard it is for veterans
to adjust”. Steven Hiller from Cracked.com probably worded this American conception
best.
“If First Blood,
The Deer Hunter, Jarhead,
and countless other films have taught us one thing, it’s that every serviceman
who has ever set foot in a war zone is just one flashback away from suicide,
homelessness, or violent murder. If we’re lucky, he will just quietly drink
himself to death. If we’re not, he’s gonna lay a beat down on your ass, because
he’s having a violent flashback and thinks you’re the ‘Cong. But while the public
understands that most trips to Vegas don’t end in wacky accidental marriages…
it’s somehow become general knowledge that the movie image of veterans is
pretty spot on.”
Now before you bombard this man for the comment in a
firestorm of angry emails, he’s actually writing a satirical observation of
American’s conceptions towards Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because he knows
it is BS. But that doesn’t change the fact that Hollywood’s newest trend is
beyond offensive. PTSD is a horrendous disorder that has affected countless
veterans and many of my friends. It’s a terrible disability that doesn’t get the attention it
deserves, but Hollywood thinks it is a great excuse to make veterans rampaging
Snidely Whiplash caliber villains.
How could anyone do this in respects to a disability and
think it is OK? Imagine if they made a film where the villains were a group of
kids affected with Down’s Syndrome? America would lose its’ collective mind.
But since the bad guys are just soldiers, well… bring on the Oscars at our
expense! As my fellow soldiers return home from multiple deployments we are
seeing support, benefits, and programs designed for us drying up at an alarming
rate in the last few years, but heaven forbid Hollywood make a film portraying
veterans dealing with THIS difficulty of civilian life because we wouldn’t want
to hurt the collective ideals of Hollywood and the current administration
behind it.
Now luckily we have a few directors in Hollywood who still
support us and our way of life, directors like Kathryn Bigelow, Peter Berg, and
I can’t believe I’m going to say this, Michael Bay. Yep, the director I rail
against more than anyone is one of the soldiers’ biggest supporters (I would also like to take this moment to point out in the most cowardly way possible that I have always defended Bay as a fantastic cinematographer).
Now you may say “But Kyle! The military were the bad guys in
The Rock!”. And while OK... yes, it is true that General Hummell and Major
Baxter were the masterminds behind the hostage taking, Bay did his damnedest to
show that they were in the wrong and did not represent the ideals of the
military. Even Navy SEAL Michael Beihn puts him in his place with a lovely
little soliloquy in the infamous shower scene…
Well… before he gets
murdered that is…
And in the end Hummell and Baxter come to their senses and
try to rectify their mistakes. Hummell was just a confused and frustrated man
who was fed up with the way the country was dealing with veterans and tried to
make it right for his me. He was more of an anti-hero than he was a villain,
and in the end he redeemed himself. Now true, the other Marines were the TRUE
villains, but their actions, dialogue (I want… my F**KING… MONEY!!!) showed
that they never really believed in the military, and as a result, never
reflected their values. In the end I don’t have a problem with this film
because the level of respect it shows the military is far more apparent than
any level of disrespect.
The point is that making military trained veterans the
villains in TV shows and films is OK, as long as you go out of your way to
explain how they’re crazy people whose ideals don’t reflect the values and
ideals of the military. The problem is that this new breed of military villainy is perpetually shown doing their evil deeds because they say they are
SUPPORTING the values and ideals of the military and America in general.
Now a few of you may jump in about now and
comment “Well Kyle, the director of Non-Stop is French, so he isn’t
going to share the same beliefs as an American”, to which I reply “Well then
that’s even MORE insulting”, because this film was produced and funded by an
American film studio. So now instead of making a statement by taking a dump on what
you perceive as another countries’ problems, you do so with their money! It’s
like instead of trashing your own house, you go over to a friends’ house who
was kind enough to offer you dinner, and then piss on their rug.
I'm actually a little disappointed that Liam Neeson, an actor I've liked and respected for years, didn't stop at some point and say "Wait, what? The villains are who? Why? That's kinda weird Mr. Director man, couldn't we just make them... I don't know... not soldiers?"
Now I could go on and on about the increasing level of
disrespect being shown in film, but one thing that’s bothering me more than
even this is the increasing amount of disdain and hatred these same films are
leveling against the Constitution. Now obviously I’m not a Democrat, but I’m
not a Republican either, I’m a Moderate Constitutionalist with some
conservative ideals (namely smaller government and the promise of
Constitutional rights). But one thing that overrides all of that however, is
the vow that I took along with every other service member to uphold the
Constitution, so what do these films and TV shows love to do in return? Take
potshots at the Constitution.
This is what I find unacceptable.
Movies like Non-Stop love to have the villain be a
Constitutionalist because it is a document that ensures people rights that the
left does not agree with, so what better way to have the audience hate it than
to have the villain misquote and pervert it like a lunatic? A very popular show
on CBS called Person of Interest revolves around a group of heroes who seek out
terrorists by using the government to illegally wiretap, record, and spy on
people, but it’s OK because they’re the good guys everyone! And then last week
the “Bad Guys” were… you guessed it… a group of former military Constitutionalists
who then violently murder people to “uphold the people’s rights”. The heroes
say things like:
“We need this system to weed out the true evil and protect Americans' rights!"
Oh, you mean the system that violates pretty much every
right guaranteed to the American people? Yeah, great rationality you got there.
Again, I know that Hollywood and the media are liberally biased, but do they
really need shows like this to push political agendas like “PRISM is the hero!”
and “Your rights aren’t as important as your safety!” or “Don’t listen to the
military, they don’t have your interests at heart.” As one final thing, I’d
like to point out that while every one of the things supported by this show and
others was put in place to “fight terrorism” (PRISM, NDAA, the IRS), the only things
they have been used for in real life is targeting their political enemies… just
food for thought.
So how can Hollywood get over this little problem and still
keep films intact? I’ve thought about it and I’ve come up with a pretty damn
good idea. OPERATE IN THE GRAY! Things in Hollywood movies have gotten so black
and white that they forget the best films tend to be the ones that work in the
middle, with no sides to the story. The best people in show business when it
comes to practicing this idea are actually the creators of the greatest
satirical program of all time, Matt Parker and Trey Stone. Both of them are
very right wing, but watching South Park and their films you wouldn’t even
notice it. For every joke about the left, there is a joke about the right. For
every jab against Obama, there is a praise. It’s not hard to remain unbiased in
Hollywood, as these two have proven time and time again.
Hollywood is getting really comfortable taking shots at the
military, and while I can’t really give them too much crap about it for the
reasons listed above, I can sure do my part by refusing to watch these movies
and hurting their bottom line. I understand that film-making is now a much more
world oriented business than it used to be, but do film makers really need to
abuse the powers that people like me fought to ensure them? I don’t know, I
really do try to keep an unbiased opinion about such things, but I do believe
that if I had never enlisted and had lived my life as a civilian, I would still
be disgusted by the things they are trying to currently perpetuate.
You ever watch a film based on a book and feel like they
had to leave out A LOT of important stuff because of time and money
constraints? Of course you did! Pretty much every Hollywood film based on a
book has been guilty of this crime, but you really can’t blame them. The
producers and directors of these films are more or less forced to cram a
700-1000 page novel into a film that’s barely two hours. Films like the middle
4 Harry Potter films, early James Bond films, and the Hunger Games films are
particularly guilty of this sin, and even people who have never read the books
can often get the impression that entire segments of the book were changed or
flat out eliminated to make the basic story concepts fit in the film.
The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is a case study
of a film, namely because I can honestly say that it’s the first film I have
ever seen that is actually guilty of the opposite
problem. I’ve never read the book The Hobbit, but even without the knowledge of
the novelization I get the distinct feeling that massive segments of Tolkein’s
other works were shoehorned into this film in order to pad out three whole
movies based on a singular kid’s book, a move which would pad out the
producer’s wallets as well. Now I know by reading reviews that the first Hobbit
movie was guilty of this problem as well, but to me this padding felt pretty organic and flowed
relatively well with the story. In fact, if you were to ask me to pick out
which parts of the film were added and which were in the book I’d probably fail
to get even half of my choices right.
In Desolation of Smaug however, these additions seem
to stick out like a sore thumb, and there are a lot of scenes that seem to jar,
or flat out halt the flow of what is more or less a very interesting fantasy
tale. To make matters worse, this is the first Peter Jackson “Middle Earth”
film that (to me at least) fully felt like the nearly three hour running time. How
early into the film did I get this odd impression you may ask? Try the first
five minutes.
One of the first scenes of the film revolves around Bilbo
and company meeting a new supernatural character. He’s an interesting character
to be sure, and it certainly is a unique scene, but his introduction and
subsequent dialogue amounts to nothing more than “Have fun in Mirkwood guys”.
If they had eliminated this early scene altogether and simply had Gandalf warn
the company about the impending dangers of Mirkwood instead they could have
literally cut twenty minutes off the bloated run time right there, and this is
an idea I just had off the top of my head. Now I could be wrong, and maybe
the character was a big deal in the book, but to me his role seemed completely
useless and out of place.
I know it may seem like I’m already being harsh on this film
right out of the gate, but I did this to demonstrate a point. Believe it or not
I actually enjoyed this film quite a bit, but it was one of those few movies I
like that I also find incredibly frustrating because it was a few simple fixes
away from being a great film. It
just feels like they took the template of something awesome and just kept
cramming more and more crap into it to inflate the running time of the movie. When you have such
a well written and widely known story as this, why would you mess with it? We
all remember what this leads to right?
Oh…
Nowhere is this “mountains out of molehills” style of
film making more apparent than in the inflated action scenes. Now I kind of got
the impression that the entire barrel action scene was never in the books, so
after the film I looked into it and while there is a barrel scene in the book
it is limited to the dwarves hiding in barrels to sneak out of Mirkwood. Here
however we are treated to a fifteen minute action scene of elves vs. dwarves in
barrels vs. orcs, and it doesn’t flow as well as previously extended action
scenes.
Now I know that Peter Jackson has a habit of doing this,
even doing so quite a bit in the original Lord of the Rings films. The
difference is that in those movies the drawn out action scenes advanced the
storyline and were more or less necessary components in the War for the Ring.
Yeah, Helms Deep was a much longer fight than in the books, but these scenes flowed
well and advanced the story just as the book originally intended. It
also helped that these battles, while having fantasy elements in them like
orcs, and elves, and wizards, were much more grounded in reality than the
longer action scenes in the Hobbit film counterparts, so it’s easier to sit
through despite the long running times.
Uh oh! I appear to have opened a can of worms, so it’s time
for us to go down the rabbit hole of filmmaking 101 again. Now what do I mean
by an action scene being easier to sit through by being grounded in reality?
Well I have a theory in film, which we will call the “Guthrie Principle”.
Patent Pending
Basically my belief is that the more grounded an action
scene is to real life, the longer you can sit through it before you get bored
or your mind starts to wander. Black Hawk Down was more or less a 100 minute
firefight between Somali and American forces, but not once have I ever met
anyone who said they got bored at any point in the film. The most memorable and
well regarded Bond fights in the franchise (the train fight in From Russia
with Love, the opening fight from Thunderball, the foot chase from Casino
Royale, etc) all have the distinction of being the most realistic fights,
and they often end up being the longest. At no point do we see Bond using
gadgets, gizmos, or wacky weapons at any point of the more memorable fight
scenes.
Conversely, over the top, elaborate, insanely choreographed
fight scenes involving beyond belief settings seem to wear out the audience
much quicker than the realistic counterparts. The last eighty minutes of Transformers
3 featured dazzling effects, otherworldly action, and breathtaking
explosions and settings, and yet despite all this high-tech wizardry for the
life of me I can’t remember more than roughly two or three minutes of it! But
the big example of this problem is none other than the final lightsaber fight
between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker in Episode III.
This is literally a sword fight with laser weapons between
two demi-gods with perfect choreography inside an erupting volcano using flying
robots, explosive eruptions, and disintegrating set pieces, the epitome of
over-indulgence in an action. So how come I can remember every thrust, parry,
and swing from Luke and Vader’s lightsaber fight from Empire Strikes Back,
but I can’t really recall many of the details of the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight? Don’t
just take my word for it though, here’s a quote from none other than Obi-Wan
himself.
“It was a challenge with the Obi-Wan/Anakin fight because
three or four minutes into it you get over the initial explosion of the fight
and why they’re fighting”-Ewan McGregor
He’s basically saying that for such a large and epic set
piece the hardest challenge is keeping the audience’s attention through the
whole scene, a problem that grounded action scenes never really have to deal
with. Now obviously there are other factors to keeping your attention during an
extended action scene such as character attachment, personal investment in the film,
etc, but as a general original theory I may honestly be onto something.
In fact, some of what I consider to be the best and most
memorable victories in action films have nothing to do with action themselves,
but with the hero using their intelligence and wits to beat the bad guy with
very little or even no violence. One of my favorite “action” climaxes actually
comes from a fantastic comedy called Galaxyquest, where the main hero
tricks the villain into thinking he’s charging the villain's ship, but in
reality he’s hiding the fact that he’s dragging a shitzillion mines behind his
ship and directly into the villains main reactor. It’s a fantastic, feel good
ending, and while it doesn’t involve a single punch or gunshot it’s nonetheless
exhilarating to see such a simple idea payout in the villains defeat.
Think about it, some of the greatest films share this
characteristic, and some of them (like Galaxyquest) aren’t even action
films:
The point is that you can create a great scene chock full of
tension, action, and suspense without using a lot of violence, and a lot of
times this payout is even more rewarding. Why else do you think I love Doctor
Who so much? Pretty much every episode ends with the Doctor using his intellect
and wits to trick a superior force, usually followed with…
But getting back to the review, the drawn out action
sequences in the original LOTR trilogy never really bothered me, but in these
films they feel shoehorned and unnecessary. Like I said, this is the first film
in the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit film franchise that really felt like the
full running length, and it’s a bit of a shame because once the film gets to
the actual introduction of Smaug it’s like a breath of fresh air since the film
felt like it was really beginning to drag on.
Smaug, like Gollum, is one of the greatest creatures to ever
be created in a film, and every second he’s on screen is breath-taking and exhilarating.
The first exchange between him and Bilbo is flat out brilliant, and if I had
seen this movie a few months ago it would have hands down ended up on my top
five moments of last year. The movie really lights up when he’s on screen, but
the only problem is the looooong lead up to get to it.
I need to stress why this film felt so long, and I hate to
nitpick because I really did like this film, but the shortcomings really began
to get on my nerves after a while. There were a lot of scenes (just like the
first scene) that they could have trimmed about 30 percent off of the majority
of them. That alone could have reduced the running time by about 45 minutes.
Also worth noting is that the entire Gandalf exploring that deserted castle
storyline reeeeally felt like they were milking it, you could have gotten
everything you needed from that storyline in about 20 minutes, but instead we
get a sequence that runs roughly 45-50 minutes.
The final real issue I had with the film was that Peter
Jackson seems to have forgotten how to break up the tension of an extended
action scene, a trait he excelled at with the previous trilogy. Remember the
awesome battle scene of Helm’s Deep? If you do, then you remember that they
kept switching back to a comparatively slow and dry scene of Merry and Pippin
talking with a bunch of tree ents. The transition of regularly switching from
an action scene to a dry scene allows the audience to retain the tension from
the action scene while the story can create a secondary tension with the slower
scene. This is called scaling or see-sawing, and if done correctly it can
perfectly maintain the tension of an exciting and drawn out action scene
without the audience getting bored of the action.
This tactic is used in almost every competently directed
action movie. Die Hard scaled the epic climactic fight between Karl and
John by balancing it with scenes of Hans discovering that Holly was John’s
wife, which created a secondary tension that transitioned into the ongoing
fight. Return of the Jedi scaled their climax with three scenes occurring
simultaneously, and while yes, all three were technically action scenes (the
space battle, the forest battle, the showdown between Luke and Vader) at any
given time one of those scenes was in a lull that allowed the audience a moment
to breathe.
But in Desolation of Smaug Jackson seems to have
forgotten this trick that he had previously perfected, and many of the early
action scenes drag on without transition and allow the audience to lull and
grow somewhat tired. Action scenes are like sprints, and if you don’t take
occasional breaks then you will burn out very quickly. Jackson begins to remedy
this problem towards the end of the film by interjecting the frantic battle against Smaug with some much
slower scenes back in Lake Town, but then he undoes this by throwing orcs,
Legolas, and Tauriel into an unnecessary action scene.
Now that I’ve gotten my major gripes out of the way, I can
finally talk about the things that I liked in this film, which were actually
quite abundant. First of all, I still love the cast. Bilbo,
Gandalf, Radaghast, and every one of the dwarves were fantastic in the film, and as I’ve mentioned,
Benedict Cumberbatch perfectly voiced Smaug to really put his role in the film
over the top. I also loved Stephen Fry in his role as the Mayor/Dictator of
Lake Town, and his fantastic turn reminds me that he’s quite possibly the best
overlooked comedic actor in the business.
Despite the fact that it dragged on a little (as I’ve talked
about), I still really loved the barrel scene. It has a real sense of over the
top adventure that perfectly lent a lot of excitement to an already exciting
fantasy film. I also really loved Barrel Bombur (you’ll understand what I’m
talking about you see it). When I first saw the scene in the trailers I was
seriously worried it was really going to stink and irritate me, but the final
product was so over the top and insane that it was really hard NOT to become
totally enamored by it.
I loved both the orcs and the elves, and while I loved them
for different reasons they both delivered exactly what we needed as otherworldly
characters. I liked how the Mirkwood elves were considered dangerous and little
insane because of their proximity to the encroaching darkness and the years of
warfare it has entrenched their world in. On the other hand, I loved the looks,
designs and attitudes of the orcs, and it was so damn great to see villains in
film that just plain liked being evil without any reservations. I also liked
seeing Legolas back in action again, but it was a little weird because
apparently Orlando Bloom has been hitting the weights since he vanished off the
face of the Earth.
I loved the scene where Gandalf and Radaghast visited the
graves of the Nazgul, and I loved how the location was both impossible to get
to and impossible to escape from. This really set the stage for just how
twisted, evil, and powerful these guys are to escape from their prison. Also,
even though I ragged on how overly long the sequence was, I actually loved the
was Sauron finally made himself known to Gandalf. It was shot brilliantly, and
I’m a sucker for the Eye of Sauron effect since it’s just one of those iconic
effects that has become a part of pop-culture.
Now get ready for this, but possibly my favorite part of
this film was the love story between Kili and Tauriel. Anyone who knows me
knows that I’m not the biggest fan of romances on film…
F*CK YOOOOOOOOOOOOOU!
But this romance is handled so perfectly and feels so real
that it’s hard NOT to root for Kili through the whole film. I’ve never felt so
hopeful or so involved in Tauriel’s race to cure Kili, and I’ve never wanted to
see two people get together so badly since a little starship captain named Mal
met a space hooker named Inara. Apparently I’m not the only one who seems to
think so, as typing in Kili and Tauriel into Google will prove.
Do NOT type Kili and
Tauriel into Google.
Finally, the last thing I’d like to bring up is that in five
movies, this is the first one that ends on a sour note. It doesn’t end on a
downer (well, maybe a little), but it literally just ends in what seems like
the middle of a scene. All the other Peter Jackson middle Earth movies ended
with the story still needing to be continued, but for the most part the most
pressing issues in the film were more or less resolved. This is not so much the
case in this film however, so be prepared to say “There’s no way this movie is
over” at the screen seconds before the credits start to roll.
In a nutshell, The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug is
an enjoyable movie with a lot of flaws. The flaws aren’t nearly enough to ruin
the film, or even make in a mediocre film, but they are certainly enough to
keep it from reaching the levels of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy.
8 out of 10
I enjoy sending my
readers to great movie review sites, so for anyone reading this you should give
the Weekend Ronin a shot. They have been kind enough to feature this blog on
the show, and their knowledge of film is second to none.
