American Sniper (2014) ****/5: This is a good film, from a historical point of view, about the war in Iraq but it is still a biased and sanitized portrayal that does not address the many issues of the war apart from the patriotism of the American war hero Chris Kyle. Great performance by Bradley Cooper.

American Sniper is a good war film beneath the sanitized portrayal of an individual who is clearly a war hero in the eyes of many Americans. Despite its biases it is one of the few films that have portrayed a historical account of the war in Iraq. There need to be more films on this subject and if one strips away the ideological basis of this film it does provide some insight, however limited, into the war that was waged in Iraq.

In this film  Bradley Cooper plays famed American sniper, Chris Kyle, who is considered the most successful sniper in American history with 160 kills. Kyle still has to grapple with being domesticated vs. life on the battle field where his true potential as a human being is realized. He also has to come to terms with letting go and accepting his losses.

Positives

The primary positive of this film was the historical portrayal of the war in Iraq through the eyes of this sniper. There are not many Hollywood based films that have  provided a historical account of the Iraq war which begun in 2003. The Hurt Locker was a fictional account and so one had to assess it primarily from the perspective of human nature. This film gives you truer account of the war and mentions some important personages on the side of Al Qaeda in Iraq such as  Zarqawi and his no. 2 enforcer known as ‘the butcher’. ‘The butcher’ appears as one of the primary antagonists in this film. Historical personas such as this give the film more heft than The Hurt Locker because the film attempts to give you some true insight into the history of it all from the perspective of the battlefield. Normally most US based films about tensions in the Middle East tend to focus on Bin Laden or Al Qaeda but individuals like Zarqawi were formidable opponents. This is clear today with the rise of ISIS  that emerged after the death of Zarqawi and after Al Qaeda in Iraq sought to rebrand itself.  The film makes it clear that Al Qaeda in Iraq was a formidable opponent and its successor, ISIS, has made it pretty clear in the present day why that was the case. They are well trained Islamic militants and this is ably demonstrated in this film because they also have an expert sniper.  So from an ideological point of view we can call them savages  or barbarians but their formidable capabilities in warfare cannot be denied. The Islamic militants throughout the world are the only set of individuals that are not afraid to challenge the might of the US-Euro bourgeois/capitalist empire without fear of repercussions. They are prepared to die for their beliefs no matter how regressive they may appear.

The battles in this film have a sense of urgency because you know that it’s a historical account no matter how biased. Clint Eastwood and his writers also acknowledge that people from both sides die even those individuals in supporting roles. The Hurt Locker never went so far because there was not much of a historical basis for the warfare. So whereas The Hurt Locker was suspenseful it can’t be as dramatic as a historical account of the war where individuals close to the main character do die. The character of the wife, Taya (Sienna Miller), does drive this point home albeit in a very dramatic fashion at times. These are historical characters and so the war in Iraq as presented here takes on a new direction as opposed to questioning whether or not war is a drug. This is why the production design is much more impressive than in The Hurt Locker and you get a good sense of the layout of the cities and the urban warfare that took place in those areas. The cinematography is also good and there are some lovely shots of the urban centres under the sweltering midday sun,  under the glare of the setting sun and shots of a sand storm which has a significant bearing on a important battle. You could not get such shots from The Hurt Locker which was more isolated.

The exceptional performance by Bradley Cooper as Chris does transmit a lot of emotions related to several moments and themes in the film. He is clearly the anchor in the film as he is portrayed from his youth as an individual who is willing to protect those he cares for. As he gets older other characters, particularly members in his navy seal outfit,  come to rely on him in times of need. It is a role Chris seemed born  to play and he does it admirably as he is acknowledged as a living legend and even Al Qaeda in Iraq acknowledges his worth by placing a bounty on his head. This role of protector does come to haunt Chris as he is forced to cope with the losses of war particularly the loss of those he felt responsible for on the battlefield. We see that when he retires; that fear of losing also comes to affect his approach towards his family.  Instead of just asking whether or not war is a drug this film addresses other issues related to character such as responsibility for others which is the mark of a great leader. Chris makes an important point after he returned from one of his tours that people are so focused on the commodity fetish while ignoring that a war is being fought for their protection. You get the feeling that Chris is not engaging in warfare just for the fun of it and this makes the film more relatable.

His attempts to move on by working with veterans is also admirable. 

Negatives

The primary negative in this film is its biased, sanitized approach. There still remains much to be said about the Iraq war particularly from a political point of view. In this film Chris is motivated primarily by a patriotic urge to serve his country. He sees a couple of videos that involve bombings by Islamic militants particularly the 9/11 incident. When he does witness the 9/11 incident on tv that more or less  cements his resolve regarding his patriotic duties. After that incident on TV however it jumps to the war in Iraq which was not as connected to 9/11 as the war in Afghanistan.  By emphasizing his patriotic urge to serve the film bypasses the many dilemmas associated with the Iraq war. The patriotic urge does well for a film such as this that wants to entertain the crowd by showcasing the heroic deeds of the US military but by doing so it ignores all the many political dimensions. Many of these political dimensions would put the US in an unfavorable light particularly as the film does not go into the reasons why the US invaded or why  a man like Zarqawi, despite his savagery, sought to challenge US forces in Iraq. So although the film mentions the videoed brutal execution of an American citizen by Zarqawi it does not mention that it was in response to the revelations of abuse at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The US military is therefore portrayed as a crusading force. There is no account of the Iraqi people or their perception of the war. It is clear that the screenplay is based on memoirs published by Chris but this bias clearly highlights that more needs to be said about the war before portraying the US military as world saviours. The Iraq war revealed so much about the brutal political environment in the Middle East that it will be difficult to accept this sanitized portrayal. It is true that Americans see him as a hero for his amount of kills but the wider context of the war itself shows that this was a war where there were no real winners or losers. One can just look at what has happened since the end of the US occupation. Did the US really win in the long run?

This is why a truly great historical film about the war in Iraq has not been made. It will also be difficult to make without asking some tough questions.  American Sniper obscures many issues by focusing on the perception of a navy seal.  His only major point of view is that the insurgents are savages and that he experiences  the loss that comes when his friends are killed but there is much more to be said from a political point of view. I admit it is his story but his point of view of the war, aside from his patriotism, is quite limited.

The film was clearly designed to be entertaining and a crowd pleaser as the US kills the bad guys but do we really need to have bullets flying in slow motion?

This is still a very good film from an American point of view but it clearly reveals that more needs to be said about the war in Iraq in film. Much more. 

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) ****/5: A well made film from a technical point of view but the comedy tends to downplay some of the more serious elements.

The Grand Budapest Hotel is a very good film from a technical point of view. In some cases, though, the film comes across as a show piece instead of a film with a genuine impact. There is a sense of imbalance especially where the comedic and picturesque elements take away from the moments of genuine emotion or the genuine moments. I was impressed by the historical approach taken by the story.

This film takes place in a fictional land locked country  called Zubrowka where the Grand Budapest Hotel is located. The film traces the history of the hotel through several characters. The author (Tom Wilkinson and Judd Apatow) that chronicles it all based on the story told by an older Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham). The story centres on the relationship between a younger Moustafa and the famous concierge/manager that embodied the character of the hotel, Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes). After the death of one of his old lady lovers, Madame D (Tilda Swinton), that frequented the hotel Gustave is caught up in a web of intrigue and conspiracy when it comes to her estate particularly as the old lady was very fond of him.

Positives

There are several positives to take from the film particularly when you consider the techniques employed by director Wes Anderson  to tell the story. Although all of the individuals are fictional the historical approach taken here captures the decline of the hotel from a prestigious hotel to a decadent body limping along to its own destruction. Telling the story involves several characters  such as the author who captures the story as it’s told by Zero. F. Murray Abraham does well here and storytelling seems to be his forte. The character of the older Zero played by Abraham reminded me of his role as Antonio Salieiri in Amadeus (1984), a man who fell from grace. Just as in Amadeus Abraham as Zero clarifies and clears up many obfuscations that were passed down via rumour or legend. The legend is never what it seems.  Fiennes as Gustave is superb because it’s clear that his spirit or will embodied the hotel in its glory days and his death probably signaled that the hotel was about to enter into a state of decline only to be preserved by the loyalty of those like Zero. As an institutional history the film is very good although the description of decline has been done many times  before as the decadent institution or body is brought to life by its past. The past always becomes more lively when the present or future seems bleak. This is the case here. In the end, therefore, this story is well told but does that make it great? No it does not make the film great but it depends on how pronounced it is and what it has to say about humanity.

The spirit or will of Gustave is brought forth well by Fiennes. He is the focal point of the story so what does he represent?  He is more like a civilizing force in this film and it’s no surprise that Zero, a poor immigrant, is caught up in wonder by this man’s civilizing gestures. As everything falls apart or when the world seems savage or cruel one can rely on the decency of Gustave. His mannerisms more or less reflect a sense of steady resolve, control and the willingness to stand up for the civilized code which Zero said as from another era. The era Zero is probably referring to are the values of the aristocracy. Before the rise of the bourgeoisie the values of the landed aristocracy were considered the ideal in European civilization.  We can see how external elements such as World War 2 threw these values out of the window. The most important external element that challenges Gustave’s civility is the intrigue that comes with the claims to the estate of the deceased Madame D. Her son Dmitri (Adrian Brody) and his henchman (Willem Dafoe) are malevolent forces in this film as they confront Gustave who appears as an outsider. In the end Gustave’s ability  to be a civilizing force is normally stands him in good stead because his good will spreads to others. He civilizing demeanour does come across as condescending in parts as Zero, as an immigrant, knows all too well but the film does make clear that at moments when it is required to stand up for what is right and decent you can rely on Gustave. This becomes very costly towards the end but in certain situations I would rather have a Gustave defending me than someone to eager to compromise or sell out.

The Grand Budapest Hotel could also be titled the adventures of Zero and Gustave. It has the feel of an adventure story particularly as the hotel takes a back seat to their adventures. The moments of adventure also contribute to the picturesque and comedic elements. The hotel seems more like an avenue to cement their bond.  These picturesque and comedic moments are lit up by a bright colour palette and lively music. I can see a cartoon series emerge from all this. There is one major dramatic scene and the bright colours are replaced by black and white which is a sign that there will be no grand escape from this particular scenario. No positive civil demeanour is sufficient in such a case.  The black and white sequence was a very affecting moment and the moment of true insight aside from Gustave’s moralizing.

There are several transitions for Zero and Gustave regarding their social development. Bell boy becomes manager, manager becomes owner of the establishment etc. These kind of advances fit well within a capitalist framework particularly as the prominence of Gustave as a concierge makes him into a prominent petty bourgeois that keeps the establishment going through his management skills. The petty bourgeois that makes capital function on its daily grind.

Great ensemble cast. This is important in such a short film where every scene must have an impact. The presence of some of these acting greats makes some of these scenes work although they come across as just stylistic instead of effective at a core level.

Lively music

Negatives

The primary negative of this film for me was the superficiality that manifests itself in many areas.  Although 

Gustave is a prominent character in the film one wonders why his presence is so affecting particularly if the history of the hotel should be more prominent. By focusing too much on the adventures of Gustave and Zero the history of the hotel becomes murkier. We understand that Gustave is prominent in the hotel business as a concierge but why should the film occupy so much time regarding his adventures. The film would have been more effective and grounded as a fictional historical piece about the hotel by introducing several characters and that came and went.  Although they do document the passage of time it is due more to external events such as war or the introduction of a communist government etc than the actual hotel itself. I never understood why the hotel went into such decline apart from the efforts of Zero to keep it up. One takes for granted that the introduction of the communists so is it that the guests from Western Europe never returned? How did Zero do as a concierge? It all ends with Gustave and I get that he probably embodied the life of the hotel in its glory years but it still does not capture the decline particularly as we are introduced to an older author who must have chronicled the final nail in the coffin. There are three periods mentioned but only the period that featured Gustave comes to have much bearing on the picture. Zero acts more like a storyteller but I would have liked to hear about how the hotel progressed after his death until it was finally shut down for good. The history of the hotel is therefore not as complete because of the great reliance on Gustave’s adventures. 

When Gustave and Zero are engaged in their adventures the hotel takes a backseat more or less. The first 30-40 minutes are therefore the best because we get to know more about the hotel but the rest of the film deals more with Gustave’s personal troubles than life at the hotel. This is why Zero’s story seems so tied into that of Gustave that his story is not given the necessary treatment although I found him more of an interesting character. Gustave comes across for the most part as a caricature or  raving moralist with very condescending tones apart from a few moments. He seemed like the typical lackey of a junker aristocrat or the servant that preserves the integrity of his master. This is why his portrayal rests so much on a comedy instead of thoughtful examination. The comedic elements drive him as a character and make him seem not so effective in serious moments. The only serious moment of the film comes towards the end and one believes a point is being made about honour lost in the sea of chaos however the situation plays in such a similar way to a previous one that it is not as effective. There should have been more build up instead of making it just a send off. There should have been more black and white scenes during the film to emphasize the serious nature of certain episodes and so it would be something that we carry with us even while Gustave is on his merry adventures.  The tragic moment towards the end comes out of nowhere and is not really called for. More serious moments during the film instead of only at the end would have provided some balance  to the structure of the film instead of skewing it so heavily with comedy and caricature throughout. Madame D. could have been portrayed in a more serious light before her demise because it is clear that she was very fearful of something. All this is brushed aside for the sake of comedy and in the beginning she seems more like a caricature or one of his many lovers.  Anderson could have found a way to make the tone more serious in her case.  When Gustave insults Zero for instance he is revealed as a typical prejudiced white European male but there is no effective response from his servant Zero. The only effective response offered by Zero is some comedic banter regarding Gustave possibly flirting with his wife or girlfriend at the time. Zero does not demonstrate that he can stand effectively on his own two feet and so we might as well have been watching Driving Miss Daisy. A lot of the moments, therefore, called for serious interaction but are brushed aside in the name of comedy.

Some of the A list stars in this ensemble piece are not very effective. They come across as mere caricatures in roles that will not enhance their reputations. What was comedic is seeing some of these American actors trying to assume a European air with little or no effect.

In the end this is still a well made film but the superficiality of some of the situations did not need to be so because they could have been more developed beyond Gustave and thereby create a more meaningful portrayal of the Grand Budapest Hotel in its entirety. It could even still retain some of its comedic flair in the process.

Birdman (2014) ****½/5: This is a very good film that is a moving experience. I was a bit distracted by the fantastic elements which took something away from the film.

Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance is quite an impressive film and it continues the great tradition of films about the theatre. I was impressed because I was moved and for me that meant it achieved something. There is dazzling technique here and there is something to say about it but not in a general review. Some of the technique is not quite as effective but it’s dazzling for several reasons. The main effects of the techniques utilized in this film are the various transitions from backstage to live performance and the shift in perspective with no edit.

Birdman focuses on how a washed up movie star, Riggan Thomson (Michael Keaton), attempts to get his directorial debut on Broadway off the ground through a series of comedic mishaps. More fascinating is how he grapples with his demons particularly his birdman superhero persona that saw him attain so much fame in the distant past. With his directorial debut he attempts to be taken seriously as performing artist especially as he is pushed to the brink with his capabilities seriously challenged.

Positives

The primary positive in this film is the portrayal of Riggan’s battered psyche. The performance by Keaton is superb and I never knew he could be this superb, dramatically. On the surface Riggan tries to stay humble and pleasant but inside he is a mess as he duels with his birdman persona which suggests that he has a split personality. Every time he tries to assert himself he is beaten down or abused. This is the case with most people perceived as humble on the outside for underneath is a hotbed of repressed emotions as they give others the opportunity or confidence to unleash their own tirades or express themselves how they wish. When these humble individuals assert themselves it seems like a joke and they are mocked by the extroverts. It is almost similar to the picked on nerd who returns with a machine gun to kill everyone or the man who commits suicide because he feels that asserting himself has done no good whatsoever and only revealed his own weaknesses.  When people like this are broken they either  put forward their more aggressive persona and become unrecognizable because you never saw it coming or they simply retreat from the world. There are some telling scenes that expose him. For instance after a fiasco with the lead actor, the popular Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), Riggan unleashes a tirade in his room and when he is exposed one can almost feel for him because this is not how he is viewed customarily. Look for that discussion between Riggan  and Lesley (Naomi Watts) where we see Riggan in the mirror trying to stay pleasant as everything falls apart.  There is also a telling discussion with his daughter Sam (Emma Stone) that is also affecting and his encounter with The New York Times critic. All these scenes reveal how broken Riggan is; how far he has fallen from his glory days when he used to play the superhero birdman.

His birdman alter ego gives him the strength he needs but it also reveals how deluded or how lost he is. It actually reveals how shallow actors are where their fictional personas (in some cases) come to be a part of their identity. Some actors seem to become so immersed in their roles that you can’t really tell who they are apart from these personas on screen. It seems that Riggan has bought into his birdman persona as being characteristic of who he is. I guess for their own sanity it’s good for actors to attempt playing multiple characters and not be so dependent on one even though it brought you so much fame. One can understand why Riggan made the move to switch to broadway because it seems as if he is trying to find himself especially as for so long he has been dominated by this birdman persona internally and externally. Chris Rock attempted to portray this dilemma in his film Top Five though not as successfully as it is done here.

There are also some interesting comparisons and contrasts with the high excellence of the performing arts in the theatre and the commercial nature of film. Film has assumed its own identity where one does not have to excel in the performing arts to be considered for a role. All that is needed is a celebrity profile. This is a far cry from the days of All About Eve (1950) where one had to prove themselves in the performing arts before one could be considered a bona fide dramatic star. In those days you had to do a play or two to really prove yourself. In these days, thanks to the blockbuster, it’s not much of a requirement.  The theatre still clings to its high standards and Riggan has to grapple with this because he is known primarily for his blockbuster role as birdman. In this film it seems like more of a sign that his career is washed up when  he decides to do a play for broadway but in this age of blockbusters it is made clear in some very fantastic moments that he could easily return to Hollywood  for Birdman 4.

I liked the portrayal of backstage theatre particularly how Inarritu made the transition from backstage to the live performance sometimes without an edit. Also the roving camera backstage also switches perspective without edit in some cases and this is very impressive.  There is also change in perspective for the schizophrenic Riggan to the real world i.e. what’s going on in his head vs. what’s in the real world.

The film is also very comedic and although a lot of the comedy focuses on things falling apart around Riggan, Mike Shiner also shares in this comedic  spotlight. Edward Norton does very well here and I was impressed.

This film however does  contain some of the elements found in Shakespeare in Love (1998). This is true of one particular element in Shakespeare… where although things appear to be falling apart the character played by Geoffrey Rush is always asked how does he know that things will work out and he says something like ‘I don’t know they just do.’ This is also the case in Birdman where although things appear to be falling apart they will work out in the end although there is an explanation this time around as Riggan puts on the performance of his life.

Great supporting cast.

I was moved by this film and that must count for something.

I liked the downbeat musical score

Michael Keaton should have been able to identify with  the lead character considering his batman roles in  ’89 and ‘92.

Negatives

The primary negative in this film for me was that the fantastic elements that sought to bring out Riggan’s bird man persona were not as effective for me. The main reason is that while we understand that he used to play birdman can he be so mentally fragile that his alter ego is birdman himself. We see scenes where he believes that he can fly or has telekinetic powers but it takes away from the backstage reality and seems like a diversion rather than adding to the story.  It might be good to portray the fantastic elements that are the norm with these Mexican directors but the birdman persona is more effective as a voice than a image. It made me wonder if someone could really believe he’s birdman unless he is schizophrenic. Is he just sick or is it a fantasy within his mind? It’s not really clear but all indicators suggest that his mind is broken and that he is on the verge of madness.  The director still wants it to assume fantastic proportions and only once or twice hints that he is just crazy. Without that acknowledgment the birdman is just a broken man who has lost his grip on reality. So whereas it’s fantastic and comedic and we come to sympathize with Riggan’s plight there should have been a more realistic assessment of his insanity which would have sobered the film up somewhat.  

All those fantastic elements, therefore, seem more like madness than inspiration. Maybe that’s the point but it could have been dealt with better. Instead Riggan appears like a genius as a result of his actions. Even the final shot appears more  fantastic than sobering; naïve optimism instead of cynicism. His release is through madness but it’s never addressed. It does not take away from his performance towards the end, because he felt it, but it does seem like there was denial by the other characters.

Some of the issues related to the other characters were not resolved as everything is centred on Riggan and so they come across as caricatures in some cases. If not caricatures then  not very developed. It is not clear what their objectives are apart from being actors. Only Edward Norton’s character gets some sort of development in contrast to Riggan but the actresses could have had more to do in terms of being more central to the story. Emma stone does the best here but I felt there was more to be said on her part particularly as she provides support to the two male leads.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) ***½/5: It was good while it lasted but it merely confirmed that these three hobbit films rest in the shadow of the LOTR mountain. Jackson should have found a different way to tell the story of the hobbit in order to make it a standalone effort. Some elements add up only as empty spectacle.

Well I finally decided to go and watch The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies and now I know why I took so long to finally watch it. My instincts told me not to go and while I was watching it on the big screen I realized that you must not go against your instincts. It’s not that it is a bad film, because it was good while it lasted, but there was not much of an impact. No matter how much money these hobbit films make they still rest in the shadow of the LOTR Mountain. I do believe that Jackson should have found a different way to tell this particular story. He applied the same techniques that he used in his great 3 part LOTR trilogy but by this conclusion the story still just felt like a storm in a tea cup. You can blow it up with special effects, action and great production design but the core of the story still remains the same. When people go around saying that the visuals in The Hobbit are more spectacular than those in the LOTR that rings like hollow praise because that is to be expected in 2014 as opposed to 2003.

This final film in The Hobbit trilogy, chronicles how the band of dwarves and the hobbit , Bilbo Baggins,  led by Thorin adjust to life in the mountain vacated by the dragon Smaug. With the mountain’s treasure hoard now in their possession this leads to conflict with the men from Lake Town and the elves as each wants to claim their share.  While they bicker amongst themselves the shadow in the north makes its move as an army f trolls and orcs advance in order to wage war.

Positives

While this film is still in the shadow of the LOTR it still manages to hold its own as a good fantasy film. It is much better than the other fantasy films out there today and that is testament to the huge impact of the source material and the LOTR films.  Jackson also has his own way of telling Tolkien’s stories about Middle Earth and it is quite clear in The Hobbit as it was in the LOTR films. Jackson seems to be interested in the tragic elements at the core of our existence regardless of the good times on the surface. Things are never what they seem and this is one of my favourite themes.  This is the element he makes an effort to add to these hobbit films which were not present in the book. In the book the affliction known as dragon sickness is more or less brushed aside but there are moments when Jackson seeks to add some element of visual appeal to this affliction. This notion of the dragon sickness would appeal to someone like Jackson because of its tragic element and how the person responds positively to emerge triumphant even if they are at death’s door. Jackson does not shy from the tragic element and that gives his films about Middle Earth a significant edge over other fantasy films;  even the Harry Potter films. Other fantasy films acknowledge tragedy as some sort of back story or some big reveal but Jackson carries it along throughout always reminding us of how much these tragic elements at the core of humankind can effect even the presentation of the physical structures that are supposed to keep them secure. Tragic elements always manage themselves physically as a decaying element and for it to be exorcised it will require great effort and upheaval.  In the Hobbit films this can be seen with presence of Smaug, the shadow of sauron in the North, the massive treasure hoard that comes with dragon sickness etc.  All of these elements require some significant effort to be removed and removing them comes at a cost.  You can’t get away from the cost that comes with upheaval.  This was ever present in the LOTR and Jackson tries to reintroduce these themes here although there is not much impact. It does not feel like the end of an era like the LOTR but the elements are there and I could recognize them. The LOTR  the doom of man was a theme was ever present and the redemption near the end (with the help of the hobbits) made it a truly moving, epochal  experience.

While there is no doom of man episode, that could makes it relatable to human beings, the story of The Hobbit is really the story about this gold hoard in the lonely mountain. It also represents its own form of doom for those involved. By the end however it is not clear about what becomes of the treasure and how things are rebuilt. This is where Jackson could have improved on the book.

Jackson’s emphasis on fleshing out the story of the hobbit, over three films of considerable length, can be seen as admirable for all of the work put in to make these films have more of an impact than a cartoon. The Hobbit was written by Tolkien as a children’s story and so it seemed more akin to fable than a very detailed story. Jackson tries to add detail here to make the adventure seem more complete and some of his own additions misfire but it’s still hard to argue with his decision to add some detail to the story. Instead of a mention there is an attempt to give a lot of  elements from the source material some dramatic heft including the introduction of characters that were not in the book. The only thing wrong with adding all of this detail is that it will misfire if it does not have the impact and this happened a lot in these series of films.  

The visuals in this film are, not surprisingly, great. The major difference here is that in some moments the visuals really do convey the tragic side particularly Thorin’s dragon sickness.

I also liked how they documented how a leader was born in lake town. The man that slew the dragon is risen to the status of a king and it goes to show that you have to prove yourself as a leader because the previous leader seemed to be afflicted by dragon sickness as well.

At the end of the film when the lights came back I saw a woman seated in the same row about 2 or 3 seats down crying. If she was crying as a result of the film then that must be achievement particularly if others have a similar reaction. This goes to show that the techniques that Jackson applied to the LOTR can still reach some members of an audience when applied to story of The Hobbit which is much smaller in scope.

Negatives

The primary negative of this film is the lack of an impact. Most of the spectacle you come to expect, that was also present in the LOTR, is there as well as a lot of romantic moments and a lot of tragic episodes. Even with all of that the impact near the end was still not as effecting. Jackson seemed to be trying to recreate the effect of the battle of the pelennor fields especially as 5 armies are involved in this grand clash but even when you see all the CGI numbers on the screen it rings hollow. The spectacle is nothing without the dramatic heft. In The Two Towers & The Return of the King when people saw those massive numbers on screen there was a lot of awe there. Jackson benefitted from the element of surprise. If anyone remembers how Saruman’s army was revealed in The Two Towers  you get what I’m saying. When people saw all those numbers on screen it did not matter that it was CGI. This was 2002-2003 and so it was very impressive and visionary in its intent. Now people are long past that and so the awe is no longer there. Jackson can no longer surprise with his massive numbers. Even the swarming killer bats seem pasted on.  Trolls are taken down pretty easily in battle. With all those numbers it’s a wonder that the orcs lost.  In the LOTR Jackson had the benefit of theme associated with the doom of man. In this case the spectacle of war resonated. The charge of the Rohirrim in The Return of the King was a clash of massive numbers but it was emotionally charged because you understood what was at stake, the doom of man. You wondered how they would rise to the challenge and by did they rise against all the odds. The buildup was just as important. In this current release there is not much at stake. In some cases they are protecting a lonely desolate mountain from being a mere strategic point for the enemy. Jackson did attempt to make it seem that something was at stake and those that understand Tolkien’s world will understand it but how do you get it to resonate emotionally with those not so familiar.  Where is the universal appeal? What is the theme that will resonate for years to come and will bring The Hobbit to mind? When I was actively promoting the LOTR while at high school the one thing that got people charged was the theme related to the doom of man and how the overwhelming odds were overcome.  They didn’t care for the history of middle earth or the intricacies of the Tolkien culture but they could identify with that theme related to the doom of man. The Hobbit does not have such a universal appeal and seems to be piggy backing on the greatness of the LOTR. There is even a reference to Aragorn  in this film and that was not necessary for the story of the hobbit unless there is some piggy backing going on.

Other elements that seemed tack on is the lovers triangle with legolas, the female elf and a dwarf. It was all unnecessary because it achieved nothing. It has no resonance and I was livid while watching it and was asking for a move on. If dwarf was supposed to become a king and then she would be his Queen then…wait that would be like Aragorn and Arwen. If Jackson cut out such useless romantic elements he could have streamlined this series of films better. He could have mentioned but not dwell on it as much as he does throughout his trilogy. Maybe it’s a good thing the dwarf died. Even the Aragorn and Arwen romance took place within the context of the doom of man which made it even more effective at the end.  At least we now know why Jackson introduced Legolas (apart from giving Orlando Bloom a job) when he performs his ridiculous stunts in the heat of battle. It seems great but it would have been more effective it was in the context of something much bigger which was the case in the LOTR.

Instead of the doom of man the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, only helps to thwart the doom of thorin. In the LOTR the hobbits saved the world of man from destruction.  It just goes to show how thin the story of the hobbit is and why it didn’t need to be a three part movie. Another element that supports this is  the dragon Smaug who is featured in this film when he should have only been featured in the second film. Why is he even in this third film? By trying to apply his storytelling techniques from the LOTR to this Hobbit series he has condemned the latter as a inferior project. He could have found a new way to tell the story of the Hobbit which would make it more distinctive as a standalone series. One alternative approach would have been to remove many of the action and romantic  scenes from the previous films and have an older Bilbo Baggins as a narrator which would unify the narrative. Jackson could have made two  very good films here by only focusing on the important elements such as Smaug’s control over the hoard, thorin’s  dragon sickness, the finding of the ring of power and of course the final battle. How much more effective it would have been if he followed Tolkien by having Bilbo knocked out and there be a black out for the movie as well. Just like that it would remain Bilbo’s story. Instead of being a spectator it would remain his story because he was knocked out and for us the screen would have to go black as well. We would have to imagine for ourselves or as he told it because in reality the battle of the five armies was not all that. There is a lot of sword slashing but it is not momentous or memorable hence why Tolkien wrote it the way he did.

In the end I believe that for Jackson to have had the same impact he did with the LOTR he  should have told the story  of the hobbit in a different way in order to make it seem like it could stand on it’s own especially as it preceded the story of the LOTR.