Movie Review: Batman versus Superman: Dawn of Justice

Hey there Chaos fanatics! No, I haven't forgotten about you, not at all. Its just that I've been really busy the past few weeks. I am working on a large painting project which I will show off when its done. I have a ton of 40K stuff that I have to put together... Wowza.

Anyway, like the title says, I'm going to share my two cents on Batman Versus Superman: Dawn of Justice. No doubt you've heard the film is divisive, to say the least. Well, Old Man Chaos intends to wade into those waters, with his own take on the proceedings. So- away we go.


First, I must acknowledge that Batman Versus Superman is not a perfect film. Indeed, it has serious flaws. However, it is also a very entertaining movie, with some thought provoking ideas and two incredible performances (and a bunch of good ones as well). Indeed, I feel the good far outweighs the bad.

SPOILERS TO COME






STILL THERE? SPOILERS ARE COMING!

To start, one must admit that BvS, like The Force Awakens, serves many masters. TFA had to accomplish a TON- show that SW is viable and relevant, get the bad taste of the prequels out of our mouths, dial up the nostalgia/fan service, create new compelling characters, create an exciting movie in its own right, and lots more. TFA is, frankly, a minor cinematic miracle in how many of these things it accomplished. We can quibble about having yet another super-death star and the like, but the fact is TFA did what it HAD to do to save the SW franchise and pull it forward- and the result is a highly entertaining film to boot.

BvS also serves many masters. Snyder and co had to: make a quality sequel to Man of Steel, try to deal with fan anger over the "mass deaths" issue, try to create a new Batman after Bale/Nolan's definitive take, lay the groundwork for a new DC franchise, go head to head with Marvel, and lots more. BvS accomplishes many of those as well. However, while JJ made it look EASY in TFA (seriously, the movie feels like seeing an old friend), Snyder runs into problems in BvS. For some people, these problems derail the whole thing. I however do not see it that way. I think the whole is stronger than the sum of its parts.

I want to start with the negatives first, if I may. First and foremost, the damn flashbacks / dream sequences / warning from the future. Right here is where the filmmakers try to build their universe too quickly. They throw so much at you, stuff that makes little sense. But worse, these sequences stop the film dead in its tracks. The movie just starts to build momentum when the first dream happens. Then the film chugs to recover when a (thankfully) shorter dream takes center stage, once again jarring the viewer out of the main thrust of the film. Both annoyed me- I think they should have been trimmed into a melange of images that make no sense- but happen quickly. Or perhaps they should have been excised entirely. The flow of the film suffers for these sequences.

The flow of the ending is very choppy, as we jump from ending to ending. Once again, I wish this had been done in a more linear fashion. But instead we jump from place to place, backwards and forwards. This diminished what I felt could have been a truly powerful conclusion. Instead it gets muddled, and again their eye is on setting up the future DC franchise, taking it off the BvS film itself.

I wish that the Lois Lane story was given a bit more import and time- I think showing Lois as a peerless investigative reporter is essential, and the "bullet" mystery is great, but it gets lost amidst the rest of the film's bombast. And its so important, but that importance has been blunted because of the truncated feel of her "side story".

There are some pacing issues overall, and a few things that don't make 100 percent sense to me (admittedly, I think I need to see the movie again to sort it out. I say that because as I think about it so much in BvS actually DOES make sense. It may be me. It may be that scenes were deleted).

Now, I really want to get into the plot and our three leads, as I feel these aspects are what makes the movie better than a casual look and/or the negatives might suggest.

First, Snyder and company throw a lot of questions at you about the Man of Steel. Should he be held responsible for the battle of Metropolis? Is he a hero or not? Should he be held to the same rules as the rest of us? Is he a god? A savior? An alien? The film devotes some time to these questions- politicians and the TV pundits / talking heads debate these quite a bit. Some criticisms have been laid that Snyder doesn't resolve these. That's outrageous. Of COURSE there's no consensus or conclusion to these. Look at the US right now- we argue about EVERYTHING. Nothing is "settled". I think the film does a fine job of building all of these up without a "full" resolution. That would be too easy, and Snyder doesn't fall for it.

Indeed, that is the core of the film. If such a "Superman" existed, how would the world respond? How would people view him? The entire film is about this very issue. Both Batman and Lex Luthor are, for their own reasons, consumed by these questions.

 Let's start with the easier of the two, Batman. First, I want to say that Ben Affleck gives this his all and then some. His performance is so good, so on the mark for THIS version of Batman, that its practically a revelation. Not only does he have the physical presence, the gravitas, the determination- he also has doubts about his "mission", and his witty banter with Alfred (played nicely by Jeremy Irons)- all done to near perfection. I cannot wait to see "Batffleck" in future DC films. He's that good. I still think Bale is the best, but in time... who knows?

Now let's look at Batman's motivation. He has been fighting crime for years. He has grown frustrated in his mission (criminals pop up like weeds, he laments to Alfred). He has lost Robin, and possibly other allies. You sense the weariness. It seems that fighting crime is a losing proposition. As he hits this point and becomes so bitter, his life is changed when he witnesses Superamn fighting Zod in Metropolis. Wayne Enterprise workers are killed, and Bruce can do nothing. He sees gods fighting with him and his people as nothing but ants. This feeling of powerlessness is added to his frustrations of a weary Batman, creating an even more bitter and vindictive Batman.

The film makes it quite clear that Batman has been getting worse. He has, as the film starts, been branding some criminals. In the film he does indeed kill (indirectly with the Batmobile and plane, but still). While many are screaming that this is breaking Batman's cardinal rule, I say not so fast. First, every modern film Batman (except for Clooney- and that should tell you something) has killed. Burton's Batman killed the Joker, Joker Henchmen, Penguin Henchmen, Penguin... Val Kilmer killed Two-Face at the end of Batman Forever. And Nolan... try as he might, he didn't avoid it either. How many League of Shadows goons did Bruce kill escaping their mountain citadel? He then later KILLS Ras (the line "I won't kill you... but I don't have to save you" hardly absolves him). In TDK he doesn't kill, but in TDKR his Bat-Plane surely blows up a few LoS henchmen (along with Talia). He may not kill Bane, but Batman doesn't even blink when Catwoman guns him down. Hell, Batman doesn't even check to see if Bane is alive! So please- don't give me the Batman doesn't kill thing. At least in film.

However, and more importantly, it serves the plot and arc for Batman. He has no hope, and he descends, ever closer to that line, the abyss that will make him what he hates. A villain. He's so close to that. And the appearance of Superman makes Bruce feel as if his entire career as Batman is pointless. What difference does a criminal make when you've got Superman and others who could destroy the world. Batman has been fighting small fires (and losing). Superman upends Bruce entirely.

Now, while Bruce is internalizing this, he comes to the conclusion that Superman must be destroyed. This may be the only thing Batman might do to keep the world safe, the only thing Batman can succeed at. Bruce becomes determined to stop Superman, using ANY means necessary. He believes that only such a measure can save THE WORLD. Not Crime Alley or Gotham- the future of the world.

Batman cannot see that Superman is good, as Bruce is too far lost in his own despair. Alfred tries to act as Bruce's conscience, but Bruce may already be too far gone. All he can see is the danger. He cannot admit to other possibilities. So, he sets out to fight and destroy Superman.

That brings us to... Lex Luthor. Now, Jesse Eisnberg's performance may be the most divisive thing in the film. And while I get some of the complaints, I find that the character is actually well handled in the final analysis. And what he symbolizes in the plot is just enormous.

First, this version of Lex is an amalgamation of all the versions of Lex. So many people want the bald ruthless industrialist version. The fact is this version has only been around since the 1980s. Lex has gone through LOTS of incarnations. In the Golden Age, "Luthor" was a mad scientist with red hair, with futuristic weapons at his disposal- he threatened the world many times over in the 1940s. Later versions have Lex Luthor as a bald mad scientist type blaming Superboy for an accident that caused the baldness.

 The eccentric and outlandish insane genius persisted for years (and is the basis for the Gene Hackman version). Then, in the 80s, Luther got reinvented as the megalomaniac industrialist billionaire businessman that we know and love today.

BvS Lex Luthor is a combination of those elements, combined with the new billionaire, the tech guru. Look at guys like Jobs, Zuckerberg, Beezos, and any of the other silicone valley billionaires. They are an eccentric bunch- nerds and geeks. But- they are a major force in our economy and just about every other facet of our lives. Indeed, their nerdiness and tech have made them VERY powerful. The Internet not only has info on EVERYBODY, it also has the power to mold people, shape events, change the world. In fact, it is scary how much power and influence the tech world has over us.

Eisnberg's Luthor combines the various Lex incarnations with this modern "tech industrialist" sensibility. The result is a Lex who is full of insecurity, nervous tics, and eccentricities. Underneath that veneer though, is a man used to getting his own way. His company literally has the sum of human knowledge at his fingertips. as well as the money and power that goes with that. Luthor is truly the (invisible) master of his domain. He is used to having total control, with everyone dancing to his tune- other businessmen, consumers, the media, and naturally politicians...

Luthor is king of the world- but like Batman, his world changes when Superman fights Zod. Suddenly, like Batman, Luthor's accomplishments feel VERY small. He is the king of nothing. He is an ant to Superman. This feeling of powerlessness drives Luthor. But, rather than be like Bruce, wanting to protect the world, Lex only sees his own ego. He views Superman (and the meta-humans that he is researching) as a personal challenge. Lex will have all of these beings dancing to his tune, one way or the other. Its the only we he can stay powerful and, frankly, relevant.

Some critics have said Luthor's intentions are murky. Nonsense. He spells it out (in his eccentric way). Luthor compares himself to Prometheus at a party. This legend tells how Prometheus challenged the gods- stealing fire and giving it to man. That is exactly how Luther sees himself- he is going to take on the gods. What other challenge is there in life for someone like him?

This scene takes on new meaning when you realize Lex KNOWS who both of his guests are long before.

 So- Luthor does many things- and you have to sort though his many layers of machinations. He begins to keep tabs on meta-humans (and Batman presumably). He learns a lot about them- facial recognition software is a wonderful tool- Luthor quickly figures out that Batman is Bruce, and Superman is Kent. Lex learns about Kryptonite as well. So he sets out to put the two against each other. Lex engineers events that make Superman look questionable (the dessert bullets, the explosion of the Senate). Meanwhile, he ALLOWS Batman to dig in a little into Lex's knowledge, with Batman discovering Kryptonite. Lex WANTS Batman to get the Kryptonite. He wants to make Bats kill Supes. Why should Lex get his hands dirty? After all- he's making this happen, and that gives him his kicks.

But- why would Superman fight Batman? Lex kidnaps Ma Kent (and in his best scene) Luthor explains that if Supes doesn't fight Batman, Ma Kent will die. Some have criticized this, after all is this all Lex is capable of- brute force against an old woman? Nonsesne. He manipulated Batman so well, testing his intelligence. For Superman, brute strength will do (hence the crude threat to Ma Kent). As Luthor throws pics of the captive Ma Kent at Superman, the hero falls to his knees. Lex is exultant, and Eisnberg gives him a cruelty unmatched by many modern comic movie villains (he exudes more menace and evil in this ONE scene than Mandarin, Ultron, Dark Elf, Ronan, and most of the other Marvel movie villains put together). In this moment he is evil, despicable and perhaps, MORE powerful than Superman.

So, Batman and Superman fight. Now lets get to the third piece, Superman himself. Henry Cavil does a good job here, though his role is less flashy than either Batman or Luther. Superman is a man still unsure of himself, his powers, and his place in the world. He WANTS to help, and doesn't want reward. He is idealistic (a dream of a Kansas farmer). But, even he sees how dark and hopeless our world is. Can he stay pure? Can he truly "save" others? Superman is uncomfortable of the hero worship, and he is truly hurt by the criticism and jealousy. He has many doubts. However, he does have convictions. As Kent, he appears to be a bit of a crusading journalist, feeling that Batman only attacks the poor and disadvantaged, and his tactics are brutal, savage. To Superman, Batman is bad- and worse, represents what Superman could be if Kent LOST his moral compass.

For both good and bad, Superman is forced into a bit of a reactionary role, reacting to Batman, Lex, and events that Lex has caused. This both strengthens and weakens the character's portrayal. When he confronts Lex, he is hamstrung- he wants to protect both Lois and Ma Kent. He has no choice but to dance to Lex's tune. Or does he?

When Supes goes to fight Batman (unaware of the Kryptonite threat), rather than fight Superman tries to reason with Batman, but Bruce is past that. The fight is brutal, but Batman has the upper hand with the Kryptonite. As Batman is about to land the killing blow (with a Kryptonite Spear of Destiny no less), Superman calls out Martha- his mother's name AND ironically Bruce's mothers name. Now, some asked "Why did Superman call out his mother's first name rather than say 'mom'"? They didn't hear the whole thing- Superman is struggling to breathe- he says to Batman that he needs to save Martha Kent- how else would Batman have known who "mom" was? No. So it actually makes sense. With that, Batman stays his hand- he and the god have something in common after all. All of Bruce's doubts (and Alfred's lecturing) come to the surface. Batman has been a fool. Superman is GOOD. Bruce was wrong. But he vows to correct the mistake by rescuing Ma Kent. Batman's line "Martha will not die tonight" sent shivers down my spine.

Meanwhile, Lex plays his last hand. He has spent a part of the film researching the secrets of Kryptonian knowledge and technology. Once again playing Prometheus, he uses this knowledge to build Doomsday- again, to prove his superiority, but also as insurance against Superman (should he win) and the other meta-humans. The battle with Doomsday is brutal, with Wonder Woman making her appearance (a minor role, but Lex had her in his file and she was concerned about it). When all seems lost, Superman grabs the Kryptonite spear, and destroys Doomsday with it. In the process, Superman is also killed.

(For those complaining about Doomsday- in the original Death of Superman comic storyline, Doomsday was one dimensional, to say the least. A force of nature without direction or goal. Indeed, Doomsday is just a plot device to kill Superman. The main meat of the storyline is the Return of Superman- which involves various Super-imposters and versions of the Man of Steel. Now, Doomsday has been upgraded since. But in the original story, he has ZERO character or motivation. For me, Lex's engineering of Doomsday is good enough for me. There are more Superman villains out there- to me Doomsday is sub par at best- so I'm glad they got him out of the way). 

In the end, Bruce realizes the error of his way, and vows not to fail again. He swears to honor Superman's sacrifice. It is clear that Superman's example has redeemed Batman. Batman has come out of the darkness, morally and spiritually. And now Batman wants to assemble these other meta human heroes to protect the world. The life and death of Superman now serve as an example, and Bruce means to live up to that as best he can. It is a great conceit, and it flies in the face of the "comic standard" idea that Bruce is reluctant to join  the Justice League. I loved the turnaround. It also plays into Jor El's lines in MoS saying that Superman should be an example to all mankind, and I appreciated the callback to that.

To me- that is what the film is about- Batman's redemption. Naturally, Superman will come back (I think...). We will also see new DC heroes as well. The film successfully makes you WANT to see what happens next. But it is Batman's character arc (compared/contrasted with Lex's) that make the heart and soul of the film.

I left a ton out, but that's OK. I think the film is a good, but not great one. It's flaws detract from what could have been a great movie. I give it 3 out of 4 Marks of Chaos. Subsequent viewings may change the rating, but that's what I'm thinking right now.

Go See Man of Steel---- Now!

Hey there Chaos fanatics. Old man chaos is here with a public service announcement. If you are in any way, shape, or form a comic book fan (DC, Marvel, it doesn't matter), a sci-fi fan, or an action fan, you owe it to yourself to stop reading this blog post and go and see Man of Steel. It is a bold, complex, and totally engaging movie- it takes the more "realistic" tact of The Dark Knight series but tweaks it, and adds in a lot of sci-fi. I think this movie will once again change the comic book movie as art form  paradigm.

Just go see it. Love it or not, it is worth seeing. I will be back for a review, as soon as I can see it again...

What are you waiting for?! Go see it!!!

Until next time...

Movie Review: Django Unchained

Hey there, my fellow denizens of Chaos. I hope you've all had a great New Year, and that 2013 has been treating you right thus far. I'm back, as promised, with my review of Django Unchained. I have been a big Quentin Tarantino fan for years now. His movies are always unique, fun, action-packed, and even thought provoking in incredible, surprising ways. I absolutely love Pulp Fiction and Kill Bill. I am also a fan of other things that Tarantino has had a hand in (though he may not have directed), such as From Dusk Till Dawn and True Romance. However, Tarantino has missed for me before- Deathproof was simply not a good movie (though the chase at the end is really thrilling), and Inglorious Basterds, while good, didn't wow me the way other Tarantino films had. So- what would Django be? More Tarantino excellence, or another lesser effort? Let's find out...

You can stop reading after this paragraph if you want- this movie is simply AMAZING. This is both a return to form for QT, and also a bold new evolution that he seemed to be toying with in Inglorious Basterds, but has now perfected here. Django Unchained was one of the most interesting, involving, humorous, compelling, and emotional movie I have seen all year. And I've seen Avengers, Prometheus, Dark Knight Rises, Argo, and Lincoln- all strong movies, for one reason or another (not to say perfect- just they were compelling somehow, with some being stronger/better than others). Django may be the best all round movie this year.

I don't want to give too much away about the plot (as there are some surprises and twists). Basically, a bounty hunter from Germany King Shultz (Christoph Waltz), is trying to track a bounty, and the only one who has information about the marks whereabouts is a slave named Django (Jamie Foxx). Thus, King decides to track down Django, "acquire" him, and use him to find the bounty. However, Django has his own problems. Namely, as a slave, Django has been sold away from his wife, and he desperately wants to find her. King, a German immigrant who loathes slavery, strikes a deal with Django- if the slave helps King hunt his bounties, King will free him and then help him find his wife and free her. Of course, that's easier said than done, as she is owned by a cruel and malevolent slave owner, Calvin Candie (Leonardo DeCaprio), who owns many slaves, including Stephen (Samuel L. Jackson), who is unlikely to let her go.

That's all I want to give away about the plot. It's best discovered as an audience member, thrilling to the action, reversals of fortune, and the top-notch drama. The acting is fantastic. In fact, all 4 of the main stars are nothing short of phenomenal. In fact, if I cared about Oscar season at all, I'd say that it would be impossible to pick which should get it, as they are all deserving. Now, Daniel Day Lewis was great in Lincoln, as was Ben Affleck in Argo; however, the four leads here are nothing short of amazing. Foxx shows incredible range, starting off as a broken, beaten slave and growing into a free man, and ultimately hero. Waltz is a revelation here- he portrays his bounty hunter with such humanity, such empathy- an amazing bit of acting. DeCaprio plays against type as the villain, and he is damn good- totally loathsome and vile, and yet charming and intriguing (like the devil himself). Last, but not least, is Sam Jackson, giving a fantastic performance as a fellow slave. Jackson has become a "personality" which often eclipses his performances, but here he really, truly becomes his character, and I was awed by his transformation. I want to discuss on scene in particular where the acting is just transcendent, but I'll do that after my rating if you're interested or have seen it already.

Naturally, just about everything else is great about the movie. The actions scenes are great and very bloody. The camera work is beautiful, epic, and appropriate. The pacing is great throughout, until the very end, where it seems to drag just a bit (typical for Tarantino). The music is an odd mix (again, typical) but generally good. There's a lot of drama here, and everything combines to add to it. Finally, there's the issue of slavery and history itself. While this movie may not be "historically accurate" overall (there's no evidence of Mandingo fighting), however the movie displays the attitudes of the time well, including the little details. Indeed, it shows the complexities of slavery in a way few films have. See, in most movies, slaves are simply victims who need rescuing by noble northerners. However, in this case, African-Americans are empowered in various ways. They can fight back. They can learn and grow. They have hopes and dreams and fears. And some even take advantage of slavery to their own benefit (without giving it away, this is Jackson's character). The movie tackles slavery head on, but in an entertaining way. In fact, the movie is quite brave about it, pulling no punches and becoming subversive (taking on slavery AND how Hollywood and the popular consciousness has portrayed slavery) in the process.

As I said, I don't want to give anything away, so I'll stop here (unless you want one spoiler, after the rating). Suffice to say, this movie was simply amazing. I really can't wait to see it again. I don't have enough good things to say about it. If you love Tarantino, action movies, or just cinema in general, you can't go wrong with this movie. It is one of the best I've seen this year, and I wouldn't be surprised if it got Oscar love, as well as becoming a Tarantino perennial favorite. I give it 4 out of 4 Marks of Chaos.

So, until next time... (Unless you want 1 spoiler).







Still there? OK, so here goes. There was one scene in the movie which was absolutely, totally brilliant. One of the best scenes in a movie in years. Allow me to explain:

Shultz and Django have decided to pass themselves off as slavers, looking to buy slaves to fight each other for sport in order to get to Calvin Candie and rescue Django's wife. They are riding with Candie back to his plantation, when they hear the sounds of dogs barking. Candie stops to see the commotion, and discovers that one of his slaves has run away, and that the dogs and "poor white trash" taskmasters have tacked him down. Candie is furious, having paid a lot of money for this slave, and decides that he should have his dogs tear the slave apart. However, Candie is also doing this as he wants to "test" his new friends. The scene builds in tension. Candie is laughing at the prospect of his dogs feasting on a slave. The taskmasters want to "see a show". Meanwhile, Shultz is looking pained. He is a humane person, and he wants to save the poor slave. Meanwhile, Django is inexpressive. The tension builds, with the three main characters each having an agenda, but this slave is about to die. Finally, unable to sit and watch this atrocity, Shultz exclaims that he'll buy the slave. Candie thinks he's got him, but then Django says coldly- "No, you will not. We only want strong slaves. Kill him. We don't care". And with that, the slave is killed by the dogs. Why did Django do it? It wasn't that he didn't care- he did. He wanted to save that man. But, if he did, Candie would become suspicious, and they would not be able to locate his wife. Django hated doing this, but had no choice. The pain is hidden, but there nevertheless, Foxx being simply amazing at conveying this.

This scene is a marvel of modern film making.  The tension is built until it is unbearable. Each character has two levels to their thought. And there are lives at stake. Django must do the unthinkable if he is to save his wife, and the decision haunts him. And Waltz is an avatar for the audience, looking at this horrible crime, wanting to stop it no matter the cost, just as we surely would. Finally, DeCaprio manifests pure evil, sickening the audience and proving that he is a real threat. The audience is breathless the whole time. It is the most memorable scene in the movie (and there's LOTS of memorable scenes, to be sure), and an incredible piece of cinema. I was speechless after that scene, and I can say nothing better about a movie.

Movie Review: The Hobbit

 Happy New Year everybody! I'm back with my promised review of The Hobbit. This has been a difficult task for me. It was tough for me to write this, so let's just go to it:

 I have always been a fan of sci-fi and fantasy movies. Since I was a kid, my parents (who were also sci-fi fans) instilled in me a love of sci-fi and fantasy. In particular, my parents both loved the original Star Trek (they were both around for the first run in the 1960s) and Star Wars. Naturally, there was a ton of this in the 1980s- and due to their influence I watched 'em with them: Star Trek, Star Wars, Conan, Krull, Dragonslayer, Legend, Alien, etc. I have always been partial to those movies, and my love for this genre has only grown over time.

In 2001, I fell in love with a "new" mythology, that of the Lord of the Rings. I was only familiar with it via the old "The Hobbit" cartoon. When I saw Fellowship of the Ring- well, that was it for me. The movie was simply amazing- I immediately got the books and read them. The movie did a wonderful job of making a fantasy world come to life. Great actors giving the proceedings everything they've got. A fantastic, fully realized world, with a creative mix of practical and CGI, which combined to make you feel like "you are there". A wonderful musical score, terrific action sequences, and a cliffhanger ending. When the movie ended, I wanted to see it again. That moment, as a matter of fact. I felt that way upon seeing The Two Towers and Return of The King (for the record, I love the "endings"of RotK- this isn't wrapping up a movie, but a huge trilogy and the "endings befit this).

The most successful element in the Lord of the Rings trilogy, however, was not the epic action scenes or great special effects, or even the fully realized fantasy setting, though. For me, the movies "got me"with it's characters. Fellowship of the Ring takes its time introducing its characters- the warm moments between Gandalf and the Baggins' family is just wonderful, and sets up so much for later. The friendship between the 4 Hobbits is totally relatable, and each character gets a moment or two to shine. Then, as the other Fellowship members are introduced- I mean, Aragorn is so incredibly complex, even from his first scenes. Gimli is typically humorous for a Dwarf, but again. he's so brave, and he obviously wants to protect the Hobbits. You get regal performances from the Elves that, even if they are not fully drawn (yet), you just "get them". And, of course, you have some real villainy from the treacherous Saruman. Though the movie doesn't really dwell on WHY he switches sides, you just know that this is a terrible blow to the heroes, even before they've started. As for the action- well, that's the thing. The action ALWAYS has our group of heroes as the focus. No matter what happens, from goblins to Balrog to Urak Hai- the fights/action are always done in the service of our main characters. The action is in a fantasy setting, but it is always done realistically- swords and arrows and even frying pans clash in desperate combat. The characters are in danger, and you worry about them- they get hurt, they bleed. The action scenes also change the characters- you learn they have courage, or fears, or connections to the others... Well, all the action in the world isn't worth a damn if the characters aren't at the fore.

In the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy, these characters are front and center. Throughout the din of armies clashing, giant spiders attacking, and a primordial evil returning to the world to wreck havoc, it is always our heroes that you are concerned about. You identify with them, root for them, feel for them. As the stakes get higher in The Two Towers an Return of the King, with bigger and more complex battles / action sequences, it is still (and always) character above spectacle. See- that's the secret- compelling or relatable characters trump every single time. You love Star Wars because you love Luke, Han, Leia, Chewie. In the recent Batman trilogy, you feel for Bruce in a way you never have before (in movies that is), and his allies like Alfred and Gordon are made into human beings (rather than just mere exposition pieces), which you sympathize with. Look carefully, and you'll see that The Matrix starts with strong characters, but that loses out to the special effects in the next two movies, sadly. The SW prequel trilogy also does that, and you can see the poor results for yourself (though it almost recovers by Episode III, but it's too late).

Well, that brings us to The Hobbit. It has been over 10 years since Peter Jackson and company first produced the FotR. Now, everyone was saying that The Hobbit as a book is more lighthearted, not as epic, not as action packed, etc. I wasn't concerned about any of that. I wanted Jackson to bring these characters to life. I wanted to see young Bilbo setting out on his "adventure". I wanted to see how Bilbo formed his bond with Gandalf the Grey. I wanted to see him match wits against Gollum in the darkest cave, despite his fear. I wanted to see Bilbo become a hero, seen as worthy by his Dwarven compatriots. I wanted to laugh, smile, feel some chills and thrills, and feel connected to our characters.

And that's the problem. There are moments where this happens. When the Dwarves first come to Bag End, you can totally sympathize with Bilbo, while still laughing at the antics of his "guests". When Gandalf is trying to convince Bilbo to join their quest, you get where both men are coming from. Radaghast the Brown, for all his weirdness, is interesting and funny all at the same time. The White Council is brilliantly realized, and you get the impression that they are good people (even Saruman!), but they are divided as to what the best course of action is. The Dwarves get a few moments to bond with Bilbo (the Troll scene). And yes, the Riddles in the Dark scene is great fun and thrilling.

However, add that up, and its about an hour. The rest is--- oh no. What have they done? It's all crazy action scenes, filled with POINTLESS fighting and STUPID physical feats. Jackson and company nearly totally forget why they were successful the first time around- the characters are not at all developed, and hence you don't care about them. The Dwarves are, for the most part, just bodies- you don't really get to know them at all. Yes, Thorin is tough, but he's SO damn one-note ("I want to get my home back and I have nothing else to say"). Balin is well played, but he's mostly just exposition. The rest of them are just forgettable arrow fodder. Jackson should have cut them down to a more manageable number (purists be damned! If Jackson could get rid of Tom Bombidil, meld characters, re-arrange events, and still make LotR kick ass, then he could have cut 5 Dwarves and nobody would have noticed). As it is, the audience doesn't really know them, and hence, doesn't care.

The most unforgivable sin, though, is how they handle Bilbo. Now, don't get me wrong, Martin Freedman is really good at the role. It's not the performance, its the writing. For huge swathes of the film, Bilbo is silent, a bystander at best. If he is "us"- how the average person might fare thrust into such an adventure- well, he isn't developed enough. The 4 Hobbits are developed more carefully in FotR than Bilbo is in this entire film- and he's the only Hobbit and the main character. We don't get to know him, and it hurts the film. Ian McKellan is again stately as Gandalf, but he is given less to do (the White Council scene not withstanding). When Gandalf's biggest laugh is him COUNTING the # of dwarves he has with him after an action sequence, well... it may be humorous, but it is also a sad commentary on how little Gandalf is developed or used here.

Then, there's the staging of the action itself. So much of it is CGI. Now, I wouldn't care IF I had strong characters, but, since I don't, the endless sweeping CGI shots quickly become pointless. When Radagst takes to his sled to drive the Orcs away- it is so frantic, without any sense of geography or any sense of menace or dread, it just looks stupid (to compare, look at the scene where Arwen is trying to escape the Wraiths with Frodo- it is a strong chase scene. Radagast's chase is similar in idea, but horrible in execution). When the Dwarves are fighting the Goblin King and his warriors on the wooden bridges- half of it is the dwarves running wildly in all too obvious CG. Then, when their bridge collapses and they kind of glide on it and hit rock bottom... an obvious disregard for physics and common sense (again- its instructive- look to FotR, at the Bridge of Khazad Dum scene. It is filled with peril, as the wrong move would cause them to fall to their deaths- there is tension in the scene, as the goblins shoot arrows and the bridge begins to crumble- you don't want these characters to fall, and it just feels like that could happen at any moment). This bit is laughable in The Hobbit. By the time the last action scene comes, you're exhausted, because you've seen enough action, but really because you just don't care as much as you know you should.

That is the sad part of this movie- you just don't connect to it as much as you did to LotR. Now look, the LotR trilogy isn't perfect (whatever is, anyways?), but whatever weaknesses it has become inconsequential compared to what the movies accomplished. With The Hobbit, the characters are never developed enough for you to latch onto- you don't know them, so you don't care. That fatal flaw derails the whole movie. The maddening thing is- there are moments that show this COULD have been excellent. The scenes at Bag End, the White Council, the Riddles in the Dark... all are great bits that had energy, momentum, humor, and SOME character beats. Unfortunately, the rest of the movie is just a mess of rapidly sweeping camera shots, overuse of CGI, and stupid action moments that undermine the "fantasy reality" that LotR established. I'm giving this 2 Marks of Chaos, and I'm saddened that I have to.

Now, all is not lost here. There is a huge possibility that recovery can be made. There are 2 more movies here- and the damage can be fixed. Here's what I'd like to see happen, and I hope it does:

1. Bilbo becomes the focus of the next 2. Here, he's the main character, buy he's a cipher for a good chunk of it. Give him some time, show how he grows. Let us see through his eyes, as we saw through Frodo's.  Make him the CENTER of the movie, and that will go a long way to make the audience feel invested.

2. Same for the dwarves. Now, you can't possibly develop them all. But, for heaven's sake, let the audience get to know a few of them. Give them close ups. Heroic moments. Small moments with each other. Moments with Bilbo. Kill a few- just to show that there is real danger here. The audience will bond with them if they feel for them being in constant danger.

3. Speaking of danger- stop the damn CGI sweeping action bits that are more at home in a video game than a movie. Give us close quarters combat. Show these dwarves being brave against Orcs or whatever. Show us some blood, some sweat, some fear (all of which were present in spades in LotR). The action scenes must have real stakes in order to be gripping. It was done for all three LotR movies- it can be done here.

4. Develop the antagonists. I didn't mention this earlier, but the "enemy" isn't developed here at all. LotR had a ton- Sauron, Orcs/Gobblins, Wraiths, Saruman, Grima, Gollum, Urak Hai, Easterlings, Haradrins, Shelob, etc. Here, the enemies are simply wave after wave of CGI sprites to be dispatched. Give them some personality. The Gobblin King had some, but it was too little too late. The Orc chasing Thorin (whose name I can't even remember at this point) is barely seen, and does little to stand out from other Orcs (metal claw not withstanding). In the next one, give us the bad guys- Smaug, the Necromancer, the Spiders. Make them evil, and cunning, and intelligent. Now, since they've casted Cumberbatch to be both Smaug and the Necromancer, there's a great chance of them being strong antagonists, which is sorely needed at this point.

5. Its the little moments. Yes, as I've been saying the whole time, develop characters by giving them time to breathe. The Hobbit seems to be so damned concerned with getting to the next "cool action bit" that a vital element is lost. The best part of the LotR trilogy are the quiet parts, the small moments for reflections, camaraderie, grieving, humor, frustration, quiet acts of bravery or personal sacrifice. Watch RotK and notice how Sam doesn't eat, so that Frodo has more food to keep going. Or when Aragorn looks back at his army, with all seeming lost, and says "For Frodo" so quietly, but with total conviction. Look at TTT and see how Theoden looks to his niece, and with a small look tells her that Aragorn is dead- look at their faces, and see pain and sadness. When Gimli begs Aragorn not to "tell the elf" about "tossing a dwarf"- so funny, but also a great character moment. Its these little scenes that add power and depth. And that is just a few! The Hobbit ignored most opportunities to do these things.

Sorry about the rant. It's just that I love what Jackson and company did with Lord of the Rings so much. I knew that The Hobbit wouldn't reach those levels, nor did I want it to, actually. I simply used LotR for comparison, since they are so closely related and all. The truth is, they left out vital elements which ANY movie needs. Since you never get drawn to the characters, there is little chance that you will get invested in the movie. Now, that's OK for a mindless action movie like Taken, but for The Hobbit, with its great literary and cinematic pedigree, it is almost tragic.

Movie Reviews In Brief: Argo and Silent Hill 2

Well, well, well... look who's here: my fellow Chaotic brethren! Welcome to another edition of the Chaos Corner! I just bought the newest White Dwarf, and it continues the changes that have been put in place with the last issue. It's really solid, though it has more fantasy than 40K (to be expected, but I'm only a 40K player). There's a few painting and conversion articles, a section about terrain, two interviews with Black Library authors, and a lot more. All they have to do is have some small fluff/fiction, and it'll be perfect.

Anyways, I haven't had a chance to go to the movies, due to my illness. The last movie I saw was The Dark Knight Rises. I will review that after I get it on Blu Ray, as I was getting sick when I saw it, and I was just too tired to do the review. Besides, seeing it on Blu before review will give me a chance to really dissect the themes, as well as it's flaws. At any rate, I've only just now been able to go back to the movies again (though I missed some good ones like Looper). So, I've seen 2 movies now: Argo and Silent Hill 2. I'm going to briefly review both. One is excellent, the other... hehe, not so much.

So let's take a look:

Argo

I saw this one with my wife. I have never been a big fan of Ben Affleck (he was the bomb in Phantoms... ;-). His performances have ranged from just OK to truly, truly awful (Pearl Harbor, anyone?). However, his acting and direction of The Town was just great- a solid, suspenseful crime drama. Well, he's back with Argo, which takes place during the Iranian Hostage Crisis. The movie is based on an actual event, and the movie only takes a few "artistic liberties" with the events, which is even more amazing. Basically, a few Americans escaped the Iranians who attacked the US embassy, but their still stuck in Tehran. If they are discovered, they will be executed as spies. With the clock ticking, one CIA operative comes up with a plan: he's going to disguise himself as a Hollywood producer, go in with fake papers, get the Americans and pass them off as his movie crew, and then escape. To make it convincing, he enlists Hollywood guys to really sell a fake movie to the press, the "science fiction epic-- Argo".

Sound far fetched? Haha! That's the point- its a scheme that's just crazy enough to work. It is a true story. The CIA actually did this, in 1980. This isn't Hollywood- this is an intersection of entertainment and real life. That's what makes this story so fascinating. Even better, Affleck does a great job of making this a thrilling, energized, suspenseful, and even humorous movie. The movie simply sizzles every second- the stakes are high, and you can't help but be on the edge of your seat- can they pull of this crazy rescue? Affleck makes sure that the tension is ever-present, but he's not afraid to let the absurdity of the plan shine through- the humor that occurs as these guys put together this fake movie is just great. Alan Arkin, as a Hollywood mogul, in particular, is a blast ("Argo fuck yourself" is something I now say, its such a great line).

Since this is a review in brief, I don't want to give it all away. I will say that the movie works on so many levels, it is a bit of a wonder. There's a lot of Oscar talk about this movie (IF that's important to you), but its easy to see why. This is an great suspense/thriller, but with a sense of humor AND it is historically "accurate"- it mixes together such disparate parts and makes them into a hugely effective combination, and you can't get better than that. I give it 4 out of 4 Marks of Chaos.

Silent Hill 2: Revelations

I have played Silent Hill games before (The videogame Silent Hill 2 is one of my favorite games of all time- this movie is NOT based on it though). I have also seen the first Silent Hill movie. That movie is perhaps the best video game adaptation ever put to film (not saying much when you see movie like Doom and Super Mario Brothers as the competition). That movie was a solid horror movie in its own right, but it happened to be based on the game. The images were right out of the game, as were its themes of religious persecution and hysteria. The actors all did a great job, and the effects were top notch.  Best of all, the movie had some scares, and it had a foreboding and nightmare like quality. It was even occasionally unsettling. It had flaws, but it was an entertaining horror movie.

Unfortunately, Silent Hill 2 has none of those things going for it, really. I saw this with my brother yesterday (he's a die-hard fan of the games), and I was very disappointed. I wanted to like this movie, and there were MOMENTS where I thought it was going to get its act together, but it never quite did. Basically, in my mind, it seemed as if the creative team LOVE the games, but didn't know what to do with it. They didn't know how to make a movie out of the games. It is basically the plot of the 3rd game, with several key differences. However, the core problems were the poor writing and lack of tension.



The movie lacks all the things that made the first one good (or indeed, anything that makes for a horror movie). There is no sense of dread, fear, or horror. The movie lacks any tension whatsoever. The script is filled with bad dialogue and double talk about cults that really go nowhere (and don't make much sense). However, the chief sin is that you're never afraid for the characters- you never feel like any of the characters are in danger. You simply can't have a horror movie where there is no sense of threat to the heroes. In this movie, that just never happens- the suspense is never built up. If you fail to have that, the movie must fail, and this one does.

It does have a few things going for it, though, which only made the disappointment worse. The creature effects were still top notch. There were some unsettling glimpses at these hell spawn (the spider made out of child doll parts was a particular standout, while Pyramid Head still is great looking) but again, without tension, the creatures just don't scare. The actors TRY to do their job, with the actress playing Heather, in particular trying her best, but the script and direction manage to ruin her conviction. Solid actors like Sean Bean, Malcolm McDowell, and Carrie Ann Moss are wasted, relegated to cameos, and again saddled with bad lines.

Again, if the movie had scares, a lot could be forgiven. Since this is a horror movie, the fact that there are no scares, no dread, no tension... well, that makes this movie a failure. Its a shame, as the first one was good, and there was potential here for a solid sequel. Unfortunately, the filmmakers squandered all those positives, making a mess and, quite probably, killing the franchise. Silent Hill could have been an anthology series, but now, if there is a sequel, it will be of the Direct to DVD bargain bin. That is a real shame. I give this 1 and a half out of four Marks of Chaos.

So, if you want to see a great movie, see Argo, as you won't be disappointed. As for Silent Hill 2- if you MUST see it, wait till DVD or Netflix. My brother liked it, but even he as a huge fan of the series could see it's flaws.

Until next time everybody!!