Zero Dark Thirty (2012)****/5: Good film from a technical standpoint but hardly evocative because there are a lot of missing links to this story about the manhunt for Bin Laden.

Zero Dark Thirty is one of the year’s best films but it is not a definitive one. The film is technically proficient but it does not evoke much that would give it a sense of distinctiveness apart from the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Everything is black and white in this film and while it is engrossing it seems more like a chronicle of the historical facts related to Bin laden’s capture rather than revealing the extent to which the hunt for Bin laden was a definitive one. One understands why the CIA is hunting for Bin Laden but never understand the spectre of this man and the thrall he holds over the US security service groups. If the film was not so biased in the hunt and were able to highlight the sway of Bin Laden throughout the Middle East the film would have been more definitive. When the marines eventually kill Osama I never got a sense as to why he was so important a target. The film should have made this element come to life apart from the brief montage at the beginning which tries to remind us of the pain Bin Laden cost many Americans on 9/11. Kathryn Bigelow and Mark Boal do not even show how they came to the conclusion that Bin Laden was the actual culprit behind the attacks. It is taken for granted regardless of the many conspiracy theories that claim that 9/11 was a contrived plot on the part of the US government or that Bin Laden died long before 2011. The film appears to be externalized with no inner structural dynamic of its own. The film does not address these many issues which would have made it truly great and a more accurate reflection as to why the US government is going after Bin Laden. The hunt for Bin Laden did not start with 9/11 so the manhunt was not necessarily a ten year procedure as the film claims. Bin laden had a very long love/hate affair with the US before he was killed.

This film is about the so called ten year hunt for Osama Bin Laden through the eyes of Maya (Jessica Chastain) that compiled the necessary material to have him brought down.

Positives

The best thing about this film is its sharp technical approach. The direction and editing is crisp and the film is engrossing in its own way as it chronicles the hunt for Bin Laden. The film highlights that the CIA intended to use the couriers as a gateway to finding Bin Laden. There are a lot of torture scenes en route to Bin Laden reflective of the Bush era which is then removed following the ascension of the petty bourgeois, Obama. There is no surprise about these torture scenes because America was never a saint. There is a whole history of torture used by American authorities towards foreigners as well as their own people and so I was not as horrified as some petty bourgeois idealists are. The film makes clear how it was possible for the investigation to be bogged down because of the ephemeral nature of the links to Bin Laden. It is good that the cell phone exists for without it the CIA would not have been able to trace Bin Laden to a compound in Pakistan. It is made clear in the film that even then the investigators and authorities were never sure that it was Bin Laden because if the Seals move in and do not find Bin Laden then it would be a political disaster for Obama.

They proceed to capture Bin Laden on the basis of their faith in Maya (Jessica Chastain), the CIA investigator who accumulates a significant amount of data on Bin Laden during her ten year search. The critics say that this is a good performance on the part of Jessica Chastain but I am not convinced. It is a  good performance but hardly mind blowing as she plays the role as accurate as it can be and even then you cannot be sure because it is not clear what makes her distinct from any other CIA operative. She gets shot at etc but there is nothing seemingly special about her apart from the fact that she is a woman who is a very determined. If the filmmakers wanted to bring forth her determination they have succeeded; another successful woman. She seems deprived of a social life which she seems to have given up pursuing Bin Laden. She also lost friends along the way. She cries at the end after Bin Laden is caught. It is supposed to be cathartic for the reasons just mentioned however that is not transmitted to the viewer. I felt nothing for her apart from her determination to catch Bin Laden which cost her a normal social life.  The performance from Chastain is understated here and it does work considering the environment she is in but maybe it is a little too understated to be significant. The character is best incorporated into the film as we watch her take over the investigation and gain the attention of her superiors.

The film also accurately portrays the hunt for Bin Laden through the one sided lens of the CIA.  This is good as a right wing chronicle of events and from the perspective of the CIA this film may be the definitive account of the hunt for Bin Laden. The film never questions their methods etc but highlights what it took to catch Bin Laden from their point of view. This will invite criticism from the other side but it will surely please conservative Americans who would want to know that the Government is there to protect and serve them. There is a funny scene which takes place midway the search where one of the supervisors in the CIA group harangues his team about the amount of money/tax payers’ dollars going into the operation with no results/targets for execution or arrest.  The glorious CIA did their work by catching Bin Laden. There is no one to question whether or not government funds are being wasted; catching Bin Laden was a good thing to secure bourgeois property.

Negatives

The film acts too much like a mere chronicle of the events surrounding Bin Laden’s capture. This attempt to chronicle the manhunt did not invite any views on human nature or the spectre of terrorism that will forever haunt Americans as they use their military to bulldoze tariff barriers. This chronicle does make the film appear proficient yet detached as if it is a mere history lesson. It seems to lack an internal dynamism of its own which would require some dramatic license. This film is in no way superior, as some critics claim, to The Hurt Locker which did it right emotionally. As a history lesson or a mere chronicle it tries to excuse the possibility of being analysed for it is clear that there is a lot we do not know regarding the hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The film claims erroneously that it was a ten year man hunt but Bin Laden was on the US most wanted list since the 1990s. Is it a ten year man hunt because Maya got involved?

As a chronicle, therefore, there are many missing links. Firstly, how was it discovered that Bin Laden was the culprit? Is this on the basis of video footage, where Bin Laden confesses, which many claim is dubious?  Was there another investigative process, before Maya got involved, that determined that it was Bin Laden apart from him claiming responsibility? What of the many conspiracies that claim that 9/11 was a government plot? What of bin Laden’s early relationship with the CIA? Why did the hunt for Bin Laden take priority only after 9/11? How does Bin Laden fit within the wider terrorist network of Al Qaeda? If you get Bin Laden would this bring an end to Al Qaeda? Is the US ready to claim responsibility for its role in birthing groups such as Al Qaeda? The conservatives would dismiss these questions as conspiracy theories but this is why we need an Oliver Stone as opposed to a Kathryn Bigelow. Bigelow makes a film but not a definitive one for she does not address these issues which would make the hunt for Bin Laden after 9/11 fit within the broader picture. If she created the spectre of the man, who does not work alone for sure, then it would be more definitive. Why is he so powerful? The film does not highlight why Bin Laden becomes this great target for the US imperialists after his activities against the Soviets in the 1980s. How was Bin Laden originally hunted in the 1990s before the upgrade in military technology we see in the 2000s? This would take only a few minutes in the film where they would give a concise history lesson as to why Bin Laden  was revered and feared, throughout the world as well as why he is so hard to catch. The production team would also document his story and how he came to such prominence; only then would you feel as if you are tackling a true heavyweight as opposed to some ordinary terrorist or criminal. This would have made the film come alive from within however as the subject is missing then the movie simply limps along. Although Maya compiles the information we are not treated to a duel of wills which would increase tension and answer a lot of questions.  They do not even show his face at the end and so we are not sure it is him and this would only feed the so called conspirators out there. Bin Laden might have claimed responsibility but we will never know for sure how he did claim responsibility for the attacks or how he orchestrated the attacks. It is all assumptions and so we are still left to wonder and Maya’s crying does not help it only distracts from these questions.

This film exists in a vacuum because a significant chunk of history is missing and a lot of questions remain unanswered.  

Django Unchained (2012) 5/5: A modern day classic

Django Unchained is a modern classic and it is one of the best westerns I have ever seen. These idealistic superlatives are necessary for the film to be praised as a current release but on a more realistic level the film fulfills all the requirements to merit this praise no matter how hollow it may sound. It is a classic and time will prove it and people must stop thinking that all the great movies were already made in some sort of warped golden age. All of this cannot be addressed in this current review but when one considers the history of the western film genre it is easy to see where this film deserves to be placed among the stars. This is probably the first western that actually empowers a black man by placing him in the lead role as the star gunfighter it  is also the first western to tackle the issue of slavery which was a feature of this period but conveniently ignored in previous western films. Other westerns tended to focus on the civil war and its after math, the struggle for the farmers on the prairie to settle in the west due to the lawlessness that was prevalent and the duels between the whites and the Indians that settled in America long before the arrival of the puritan pilgrims. This is the first to tackle the issue of slavery head on by allowing you to see the west through the eyes of a black bounty hunter named Django (Jamie Foxx) who is determined to be reunited with his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington). Django is aided to do this the bounty hunter, Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), who offers to  free him from his bondage in chattel slavery on the terms that he helps him to catch a group of the outlaw Brittle brothers on the run. After this task, where Django gains his freedom,  and several others are accomplished Django sets out with Schultz  to the Candie plantation where his wife is held by Calvin Candie (Leonardo Dicaprio) whose hobbies include Mandingo fighting. On the Candie plantation we encounter his main house slave, Stephen (Samuel Jackson), who suspects the two travelling bounty hunters who arrived on the pretext of buying Mandingo fighters when in fact they wish to purchase Broom Hilda.

  The supporting performances in this film are so strong that at least one will be nominated for the academy award and will win if there is any justice.

Positives

This film takes place in 1858, two years before the civil war, and covers much of the southern United States including Texas, Tennessee and Mississippi. This year is important because this is the best way to become accustomed to the culture of slavery, its decadence and decline. After the civil war one would only hear in the westerns about what happened in the past or the legacy of racism that began with slavery. In this film we are thrown into the culture of slavery and the use of the word nigger is almost a matter of fact and is simply a part of daily life. It does highlight that the use of the word nigger is here to stay particular with us poor black folks who have adapted it for our own use. This is one of the legacies of slavery. This is not the first feature on slave life in America however it is one of the few that empowers a black man to take control of his destiny once given the opportunity in the corrupt era of slavery and all of this was before the civil war where the great Abraham Lincoln becomes the hero of the blacks in America. This film also goes ahead to show us the legacy of the house slave vs. the domestic slave duel which has existed until the present day.  The House Slave is traditionally represented by the integrationists championed by people like Martin Luther King Jr and Barack Obama who merely champion the principles of bonding with our white brethren and so emphasize that we must prove ourselves by acting like them. This group tends to excuse the damaging effects of slavery since they enjoyed a lot of the benefits being members of the white masters’ household. They have been desperate to prove themselves worthy of the white man ever since the end of slavery and so emphasize that they should live together. The field slave tends to represent the separatist group represented by the likes of Malcolm X and Marcus Garvey who advocated that there was no place for the black man in the white man’s world particularly if he wishes to stand on his own two feet. The field hand was usually the one brutalized by slavery and is more likely to rebel against the whites. There is still a need to revolt because there are many whites who still believe that they are superior to blacks and other ethnic groups despite the many attempts of the integrationists to kiss ass. The ruling class of America is still largely represented by whites whereas blacks are largely relegated to petty bourgeois status which includes the high income group of entertainers and sports personalities (still relying on their physicality to enjoy some form of status with the whites. The more they rely on their physicality the less chance they have of seizing control and so they merely become embroiled in the propaganda of the ruling class. Blacks must seek to control the means of production as opposed to merely relying on wages for not matter how high they are it is still a form of servitude).  This film highlights the origins between these two black groups with more depth than most films of the past.  In this film the field hand actually comes out on top whereas traditionally, in films such as Gone with the Wind (1939), the house slave was deemed more respectable for presentation on screen.  The House Slave played by Samuel L. Jackson represents the opposite of Mammie played by Hattie Macdaniel in Gone with the Wind who was on the side of the white protagonists that were championed as paragons of virtue. In this film the white master represented by Calvin Candie does not represent the paragon of virtue. It would be ironic if Jackson could win the supporting actor academy award as Macdaniel did in 1939. This is a superb performance by him and he is played by Jackson as a simpering uncle tom with parkinsons, or so it seems at first, but gradually you get to realize the influence he has over Candie and the plantation and you become aware of it towards the end. There are times when his tremors give way to an upright man who does not need the use of his cane which probably suggests that he was fooling his masters all along in order to move up the ranks in the domestic household.

The film expertly uses the strong supporting characters to represent the various transitions required for Django to become truly unchained by the end. At first we encounter Schultz played by Christoph Waltz who gives Django his freedom and trains him in the art of gun fighting and being a bounty hunter. He even teaches him how to read.  He takes him through his paces and helps him to rescue Broomhilda however more is required particularly as he encounters Calvin Candie, expertly played by Dicaprio in one of his best performances. Schultz meets his match here and he contrasts with Candie because he empowers Django and begins to take a more enlightened view of slavery whereas the brutality of candie towards his slaves is based on the rights towards his property that was legally purchased. Schultz is not accustomed to its brutality particularly the images of a slave being fed to the dogs. Of all the strong supporting cast in this film Dicaprio should be nominated and, if possible, win the academy award. His character represents a significant turning point in the film with the help of Jackson’s house slave. He truly epitomizes the decadence of the slave society prior to the civil war and here the slave masters are not portrayed as gentlemen and their ladies fair and beautiful. The decadence is all around and Quentin Tarantino accurately portrays this through the character of Calvin Candie.  Jackson’s character represents the outcome of the last transition in this film and is dealt with accordingly for it is here that the duel between house slave and field slave comes to a head and all is revealed in the final act. Jamie Foxx is not overshadowed by these other actors and holds his own and delivers a strong performance, probably his best since 2004 because he truly portrays the growth in his character; the cool and suave black gunslinger. Before there the blacks of north displayed their illustrious wares after the civil war Django of the south rode on a horse. 

There are some humorous moments in the film particularly regarding the bags on the head of a white militia which is a precursor to the Ku Klux Clan. Some of the moments of humour are laugh out loud based on how shocking the reality is.

Tarantino deserves applause for this effort because he has been consistent in portraying strong black protagonists particularly in Pulp Fiction (1994) and  Jackie Brown (1997). His partnership with Samuel Jackson has consistently borne fruit and Django Unchained is another effective collaboration between the two.

The spaghetti styled western is effectively brought to life here in a most vivid way. It reminded me of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly directed by Sergio Leone. I am sure there are other influences utilized by Tarantino however it reminded me of the style in the Sergio Leone films but with much more graphic detail. The treatment handed out to the slaves sometimes seems to be colourful however it merely grounds the context within the period of slavery. The physical brutalization in the form of whips, branding and castration is certainly more effective than the use of the word nigger. This is why in the old spaghetti films the main objective of the protagonists was treasure of some sort in the form of gold but in this film Django’s objective is to be reunited with his wife who he married while he was a slave before being forcibly separated.  That is his treasure although he does end the film fairly well off in terms of money and freedom papers intact for he and his wife.  This is why context is important. This film is a modern classic because it is the first western to focus exclusively on slavery which was clearly a feature of the gunslinging west but conveniently ignored in past western films so as to portray the white protagonists in a positive light. Unforgiven (1992) was one of the first revisionist westerns where the white protagonist would have a black partner.  William Munny (Clint Eastwood) and the black man Ned  (Morgan Freeman) go out on an their final adventure to claim a reward and just like this film it has a shootout that is part cathartic. This occurred after the civil war however and did not take it as far as this current release.   Django Unchained tackles slavery head on with a fictional twist and a sort of revisionist history so as to empower the black protagonist, Django, at the centre. As the first western film to do this it must be considered a modern classic. 

 I did not mind the violence because it was gratuitous as well as cathartic although it can be seen as excessive and bordering on the absurd. This highly stylized level of violence does serve its purpose and many people will remember the lash of the whip. It becomes ingrained in your mind as the film progresses and you realize that it is a matter of fact. In Glory when the slave, or former slave, played by Denzel Washington revealed the scars caused by whiplashes it was shocking then but in Django it is brought down to earth as a common feature of life in the south. It is hardly remarkable. The use of the word nigger is not offensive for it is  also a matter of fact and Spike Lee needs to shut his mouth. In the older films that dealt with racism when a white man said the word nigger it was truly shocking whereas here the reality is brought home and it is clear to see why nigger has become a part of the American lexicon. The word is nothing to marvel at  for the people who are offended are those who believe that we should move beyond our history. There are other terms like Big Daddy, Southern hospitality etc that are part of people’s everyday lives much like the violence. This film serves as a reminder of how Americans have historically used violence to achieve their ends and a classic example is slavery. These slave masters and their henchmen used violence as a matter of fact to keep the slaves in order. The recent shootings in Connecticut have nothing to do with gun control but the historical use of violence in America to subdue people since it is the only way to keep in check democracy gone wild. The slave era was one of tyranny and oppression. In the past it was a matter of fact whereas in 2012 a little man decides to use violence to make a point and bestow his judgment on people in a grand lordly fashion. This film will unsettle the petty bourgeois groups that spike lee belongs to because it is supposed to. It is a period in America now where they are trying to trumpet democracy while using military conflict to subdue the rest of the world. Like all great empires America has not been able to escape the use of force as a means of imposition. There is no democracy in American foreign affairs; it is a fantastic illusion given credence by bloated personalities such as Barack Obama. This film highlights expertly that throughout the progress of America violence is instrumental in degrading the oppressed classes of America. Spike Lee should know better because he seems to hope that slavery must be emotionalized and dramatized and make people teary eyed but that is not what makes us cry in the real world when we speak of these horrors; we have to be shocked before we can cry. When Schultz winces every time he recalls the dogs that fed on the flesh of the runaway slave featured in this film it is a reminder for us all. Django tells Candie that Schultz is just not used to the brutality in America that is all.

This film has all the beautiful scenery of other westerns but the violence is the grounding element here.

The soundtrack is superb.

Negatives

The primary negative is that some of the humorous moments are based on caricatures such as the militia that acted as a precursor to the ku Klux klan. It does not really stick. The violence can be a bit too bloody particularly in the shootouts. It oftentimes borders on the absurd.

Tarantino is not seeking to dramatize slavery in anyway and so he seeks to shock you at every turn in order to make the film stick as it progresses. It serves its purpose however because the story is well told and everything becomes a matter of fact and you realize that this is the world they live in.

There are some tongue in cheek moments where the actors wink at the camera and bring their real live selves into play. The final shot with Jamie foxx and his horse is similar to the actors of the theatre that give thanks for the attendance by the audience. Tarantino cameo as a Australian man did not really work as he gets blown away literally. It could have been a bit more grounded but who am I to complain. You get the sense that it is a spaghetti western in the form of pop art and so as it is not based on fact why worry about a cameo here and there and a tune by Rick Ross that actually works this time around in capturing the mood of the wild west.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) ***½ /5: This is a solid film but not definitive and it remains to be seen whether or not it will suffer for riding high on the many fantastic elements for a three part series.

This story about the hobbit, Bilbo Baggins, who set off a chain of events that were to culminate in the Lord of the Rings saga is a solid film although there are some misgivings. There are many complaints about the director, Peter Jackson, manipulating a simple children’s story and adapting it as a three part epic as was done with the Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-03), which is truly one of the first great set of films released in the first decade of the 21^st century. After watching the film I found it hard to disagree with the approach taken by Jackson because he explained everything that is necessary for the story as a whole. On the other hand the film does seem to stretch itself thin by trying to offer climax after climax which is not necessary for the story itself which is a simple tale at its core however in the telling of the story you can understand why it is good to have the many elements of the story developed so as to envelop you in the world as it is experienced by Bilbo Baggins. One feature that was not developed by the critics which would serve to support Jackson’s approach is the actual contrast between The Hobbit and The LOTR trilogy which includes the degree of fantasy incorporated into the narrative. In the LOTR the experience of the characters was one of decay and decline with the hope for a new rebirth and the fantastic elements were few and far between or were mere relics relegated to the history of the Middle Earth. This is why it was quite symbolic for many because most of the fantastic elements were grounded in some quaint medieval reality particularly as it concerned the world of man. By the end of the LOTR it seemed as if the great fantastic ride was over and the world of Tolkien was about to enter a period of idyllic realism as the fantastic elements retreated into the background. This is not the case in this current release The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey where the fantastic elements are very much alive for there is even the dragon Smaug which took over the kingdom of Erebor whereas in the LOTR trilogy it would be said that a dragon would not have been seen in Middle Earth for many years. Trolls actually speak in this current release whereas in the LOTR they were mere images of stone. In this current release we see stone giants clashing amidst a thunderstorm whereas that would seem completely out of place in the LOTR trilogy. What came as a genuine surprise in the LOTR trilogy is a matter of fact in this first installment of The Hobbit and so contrary to some opinions Jackson does have a lot of material to work with from the point of view of fantastical images on screen. This film seems more fantastic in terms of the imaginative elements than the LOTR trilogy hence why Jackson probably felt that the same approach of creating a trilogy could be taken with the children’s book The Hobbit which is not an actual three part series as the LOTR books written by Tolkien. I have read the book and Tolkien did cram a lot of material into that small book because not only is Smaug a threat but the goblins which will clash with elves and dwarves in the war of five armies. The defeat of the goblins will see them vanquished from the north forever hence why in the LOTR they appear as relics of an illustrious past. The approach taken by Jackson seems to be one where he develops the story in a unhurried fashion which is in contrast to the approach taken by Tolkien who did not elaborate on many things but merely mentioned them. It is a single book and so the question remains: Did this children’s book deserve to be made into a trilogy with each film running close to 3 hours? This debate will be resolved when the next installment is released. The one worrying sign is that certain parts of the story do not deserve to be the basis of a climax and does not seem to mesh with the overall objective of the group of companions to reclaim the Kingdom of Erebor.  The best moments involve the distinct character of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins who is at odds with his dwarf companions who do not feel that he is fit for adventure. Gandalf however has faith in his choice of making Bilbo the 14^th companion for the journey. It safe to say that this film will not set the world alight as did The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring when it debuted in 2001.

The film is basically about the tale of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) who is swept along, unexpectedly, into an adventure with his 13 dwarf companions and the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian Mckellen) to reclaim the kingdom of  erebor from the Dragon Smaug that took control of the hoard of gold mined from that wealthy dwarf kingdom.

Positives

The visuals are top notch in this film enhanced by the 3D factor. The scale of the film seems much more grandiose in certain parts particularly the flight of the eagles who rescue the dwarves from a certain dilemma. The visuals enhance the fantasy that is on display and the film does seem brighter and more alive than the LOTR as a result. The tone of the LOTR was much more somber and realistic and certainly contrasts with the hobbit where things of lore and myth actually exist. The more fantastic element makes the mood more upbeat even when you encounter Gollum or the dwarves mourn for a home to call their own. It all remains upbeat even when the orcs and goblins are on the hunt. Those elements are merely to give the story some momentum.

I believe that Jackson knows what he is doing in making this film a three part series.So far it does not seem as if it has fallen flat on its face; only in a few parts because this story was not necessarily meant to be apocalyptic but a mere story of simple adventure. Regardless of what people say this is not a bad film and so it cannot be rated as such.  There is nothing apocalyptic in it. There is a suitable contrast between the wandering dwarves and the more homely hobbit Bilbo Baggins. The film truly captures how Bilbo is swept up in his journey with even a touch of history regarding one of his ancestors, a Took, who could ride a horse and aided in defeating a goblin king and his army. It seems as if Bilbo has the goods in his blood to be a hero. Gandalf makes it clear that Bilbo of all people should not be so domesticated etc. It is the tide of history that sweeps him into this adventure because he sets off a chain of events that will culminate in the LOTR saga although it would not seem that way for the present as the adventure is merely a simple one. The film stays true to this and gives weight to the light hearted moments as well as the somber ones. We see talking trolls, clashing stone giants, a grotesque goblin king and his followers, Gollum, a white orc with a vendetta against Thorin who is the nominal leader of the dwarf pack having descended from his grandfather Thrain who lost the kingdom to the dragon; there are even elves on the hunt as well as a wizard not yet seen in this universe Radagast the brown who is the lowest wizard in the hierarchy of wizardry it seems and has a chariot driven by rabbits. There is a lot of quirky fantasy here but the main issue here is the finding of the ring of power which is the grounding element as well as the reawakening of the wraiths that were to torment the fellowship in the LOTR. There is no trace of the race of men in this film and so the fantastic elements abound and there is not much to relate to here from a realistic perspective. Elves, Dwarves, trolls, wizards, ghosts, goblins, large wolves and hobbits; oh yes the eagles are no surprise here and are an active part of the action.  The fantasy here is truly at the level of a fairytale where nature comes alive.

The best dramatic moments, however, remain when Bilbo has to justify his worth to the wandering party of dwarves, particularly the leader Thorin. The nature of the hobbit comes alive in these moments particularly when he states that he is no hero and is constantly referred to as the thief or burglar.

As a fantasy film it is leagues ahead of twilight and is much better than the latest Harry Potter film. The standard of this film exceeds most of the fantasy films released in previous years. It is measured only by the LOTR trilogy.

Negatives

The primary negative is the denouement in this film.  It is not necessarily clear whether or not some of the moments that led up to the finale were necessarily elements worthy of a climax in such dramatized fashion. It was really just a minor episode in the book however Jackson tries to give it weight by bogging us down with the history between the white orc and thorin. When the two confront each other it is melodramatic and hardly effective. This climax would have made it seem as if the film is drawn out because it never deserved such a dramatic climax particularly based on how it is presented.  In the Fellowship of the Ring there was the breaking of the fellowship; in the Two Towers there was the defeat of Saruman and in the Return of the King there was the return of the King. In the LOTR these climaxes made it necessary to have a trilogy. It is not so in the case in The Hobbit particularly as it is a simple adventure and most of the episodes, while magical, do not stir you in such a way to make it deserving of this farcical dramatic spectacle. It is pure fantasy that is all; it is not destined to make profound statements  apart from the fact that evil is lurking..

It will have to be seen how the three part arc will play out and so I do not want to make an outright call on the whole franchise. It remains to be seen however comparisons with the LOTR will be rife because it is set up in such a fashion although the events themselves are hardly worthy of such an epic treatment. The film soars high on grand fantasy which renders it almost empty and this is in contrast to the LOTR which emphasized the doom of man and the grand struggle between so called good and evil.  This may be its downfall but one cannot tell but so far it seems that Jackson is milking the many elements of fantasy present in this film with the hope that this will carry the interest of moviegoers for the next three years. This film is certainly not in the league of the LOTR trilogy because those films were documenting the end of an era, literally. It was an epochal sort of film series. The only defense that Jackson has is that the story of the hobbit does take place within the space of a year and so adding weight to that experience does make sense although the elements involved are merely fantastic without being definitive and seems to invite a more pictorial sort of presentation as opposed to a definitive one. When Bilbo sees wonderous sights then we too are to be held in awe and there are many to behold. Is this really definitive, this tide of fantasy? There is no doubt that many will take pleasure in the elements of fantasy and the references to the LOTR but is it not just eye candy and are 3 years of films worth it? This will be seen after the dragon is defeated.

This trilogy will not be as definitive as the LOTR but it will have its admirers.

The idea that doomsday events are supposed to occur at the end of 2012, according to the Mayan Calendar, is rubbish

This is a brief statement claiming that the doomsday events that are to occur at the end of 2012, according to the Mayan calendar, is a load of rubbish. This prophecy belongs on the refuse heap where can be found all the other failed religious prophecies of the past. This prophecy is typical of the wild fanaticism associated with religious doctrine which is an offspring of the warped idealistic philosophy where  thoughts determine the outcome of concrete determinations. In this case the basis for this thought is a a prophecy. The destruction of the world should only take into account the destruction of the world of man's material circumstances associated with the movements of society and the class struggle. This is typical of humans that see destruction of the world through their eyes only without taking into account the material world and what is actually occurring. The real material value is the cash cow provided by this prophecy and so tourists will now visit mayan sites with the hopes to come to some understanding about its prophecy. This mass form of propaganda by the petty bourgeois groups is pathetic and disturbing as it aids in the convolution of societal perceptions which have no grounding in the material forces that we are governed by. Is there really a planet heading towards us? No, because it is a fantastical ideal that has no basis in what is actually going on in the material world around us. If this was so the planet on a crash course would have been reported already by the various space centres. Melancholia (2011) released last year hoped to elaborate on this prophecy and the executives should have released the film this year. The film 2012 also should have been released this year so as to cash in on this great fantasy ride that is available for a relatively small cost.

Lastly this prophecy is testament to the death of a truly ancient Mayan civilization. The prophets that created this malicious falsehood existed at a time when the empire itself was in its heyday. Where is that civilization today? In ruins. The people who made the claims are dead and gone so why put forward this false propaganda in order to cash in on a obsolete civilization. The Mayan civilization was governed heavily by religion, see Apocalypto directed by Mel Gibson, and so this prophecy is testament to the failure of idealism. The Mayan civilization was swept aside by the material forces associated with the rampaging conquistadors of the Spanish empire who exploited the territory in the search of gold. The material forces undermined this civilization in an ignominious fashion. The art of Film itself has played its role in this propaganda machinery because this is testament to the fantasy imbued in human civilization which is the source for our tragedy. It is because of these fantasies that we believe in the massive accumulation of riches etc. This is probably why the prophecy still has some clout in today's world as it preys on the fears of those religious minded individuals that collapse on their selves time and time again. They continue to insist on believing that that prophecy, which is an offspring of the mind, actually has bearing on reality.  The most it can do is exploit our fears which in turn compels people to do foolish things. SELL IT ALL.

The mayan civilization is now obsolete and as they envisioned that the world would end in 2012 it is testament to the failure of idealism as a philosophy. The Mayan civilization ended long before that and I am sure they saw themselves lasting longer than they did if not for the rampaging mercantile spaniards that destroyed their culture. Their culture in the form of ruins now stands as a great source of exploitation by the petty bourgeois clan that hope to milk the cash cow and create some excitement within the various societies around the world so as to distract from the important matters at hand.