The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies Review

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was excellent and The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug left us dangling with an exciting cliffhanger. We had to wait until The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies (2014) to see how this all ended and hopefully see how it tied in with The Lord of the Rings. Overall, The Five Armies was good, and gave us a satisfying end to the trilogy.

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and the rest of the dwarf company watch helplessly from the Lonely Mountain as the dragon Smaug (Benedict Cumberbatch) destroys Laketown in revenge for helping the dwarves. In Laketown, Bard (Luke Evans) manages to exploit Smaug's only tiny weakness and brings the dragon down. The dwarves tell Bilbo that Thorin has fallen into madness due to Smaug's "Dragon Sickness" as Thorin seaches for the Arkenstone, the symbol of Thorin's authority to rule the dwarves. Meanwhile, Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Saruman (Christopher Lee), and Radagast (The Doctor Sylvester McCoy) rescue Gandalf (Ian McKellen) from the Necromancer's fortress. Gandalf learned of an Orc army from the east approaching the Lonely Mountain and hurries to warn the Dwarves. Elves Legolas (Orlando Bloom) and Tauriel (Evangeline Lilly) discover a goblin army making their way toward the Lonely Mountain, seeking the now unguarded gold. The Laketown survivors implore of Thorin only enough of the dragon's gold to rebuild their decimated lives. They are aided by the elf king Thranduil (Lee Pace) and his soldiers who himself seeks elven crown jewels from the dragon's keep. With these five armies closing in on the Lonely Mountain and Thorin struggling with madness and paranoia, an all out war will inevitably breakout. But Bilbo still has a few tricks up his sleeve and may turn the tides of war.

It did take me a while to figure out who the five armies were; I'd only counted four. The goblin and orc armies look very similar, after all. So, we've got men, dwarves, elves, the orcs and goblins who have been chasing our heroes throughout the trilogy, and an "orc army from the east." There are untold masses of riches and treasure in the Lonely Mountain, but not all the armies are after that. Some are after it for its strategic location to bolster their strength in upcoming war campaigns, others are after specific tokens that found their way into the hoard, and others naturally want more money than they can possibly know what to do with. Everyone has a stake in this battle.

The Desolation of Smaug had some pacing issues in the interest of telling a story, The Five Armies almost had the opposite problem. There is a whole lot of action in this installment to the point that we don't get much story development. To be fair, though, you should have seen all of these many characters developed and have understood enough of the set up in the previous two movies to not need much of that here. There is tons of action and fight scenes and the epic, big scale battles that Peter Jackson did so beautifully in The Lord of the Rings. The only fight I was disappointed in was battling Smaug; he's depicted as immensely powerful and an unstoppable force of destruction yet defeating him seemed a bit too easy and anticlimactic. That fight could have been lengthened or made more significant, but everything else was amazing. You will absolutely not leave this movie wishing there had been more action. In fact, I dare say it was on the brink of being too much action and not enough of anything else.

At the end of the movie we see a couple of characters going off in their own direction which we are sure will lead them to their respective roles in The Lord of the Rings. That was expected, but the one scene which really bridges this trilogy together with The Lord of the Rings is when Gandalf was rescued. Here we see some of the bearers of rings of power and some wizards duke it out with the Necromancer and the nine souls of men who succumbed to Sauron's power and attained near-immortality as wraiths. You watch this and understand how events in The Hobbit significantly affected things in The Lord of the Rings. While we do get a satisfying conclusion, by the end of The Five Armies you'll be ready to catch the next installment which is, of course, the first Lord of the Rings movie.

As a trilogy, The Hobbit has pacing issues and included a lot of extra stuff that wasn't in the book. I reiterate that these movies were based on the book by the same title, the appendices to The Return of the King, and Tolkin's personal notes. There is extra stuff that was not in the book, but is still technically cannon. Peter Jackson did add a few things here and there such as Tauriel's character and her rather annoying love interest with Kíli. The Lord of the Rings was a trilogy of books so it made sense to make them a trilogy of movies. The Hobbit was one book originally intended for kids. Now that I've seen the entirety of the trilogy, I think that about half of the extra material included in the movies could have been left out. It did feel like it was random filler to extend the length of the story and justify three movies instead of two, as was originally planned. I still think Jackson could have done The Hobbit an exceptional service transitioning it from book to movie if it had been left at two movies instead of a whole trilogy with extra padding to lengthen the story. This is not at all to say that I don't like The Hobbit; I do! I simply think a more concise pair of movies would have made them stronger. The Lord of the Rings is much better, but that is a very high standard to hold any movie up to.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies was a lot of fun. It championed the beautiful visuals and special effects we have come to love from Middle-Earth movies, we saw our heroes in action one last time and saw their particular strengths shine in the hands of some great actors, we saw how the events in The Hobbit significantly affected events in The Lord of the Rings, and we saw a satisfying conclusion to this trilogy. If you remember that satisfied yet sad feeling you got as the end credits rolled at the end of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part 2 when you realize that that is it and there will be no more Harry Potter movies, you'll likely feel that at the end of The Five Armies as you realize that there will be no more Middle-Earth movies. I recommend catching this in theaters, it's likely the last chance you'll get to see the beautiful fantasy world of Middle-Earth on the big screen. Though you should wait for the extended edition of the movie to hit blu-ray before buying a copy for your home collection.

What were your thoughts on the additional content put into The Hobbit trilogy. Comment below and tell me about it, but please avoid spoilers for anyone who hasn't seen everything yet.

The Adventures of Tintin Movie Review

Tintin is one of the most popular European comics of the 20th Century with publication dates ranging from 1929 to 1976. Since they were originally written in French, the comics were recommended to me to help me learn the language. I really didn't get into them as a kid so I wasn't excited when The Adventures of Tintin (2011) was announced. Now that I've seen it, I'm mad that I missed it in theaters!

After buying a model ship off a market stall, young journalist Tintin (Jamie Bell) is initially puzzled that the sinister Mr. Sakharine (Daniel Craig) should be so eager to buy it from him, even to the point of murder and kidnapping Tintin to join his gang as they sail to Morocco in on an old cargo ship. Sakharine has bribed the crew to revolt against the ship's captain, the drunken Captain Haddock (Andy Serkis). Tintin, his pet dog Snowy, Haddock, and a couple of bumbling twin Interpol detectives (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) travel from Europe to the Sahara and Morocco in pursuit of a pickpocket, a model-ship collectors, and a long lost treasure.

Starting out, I didn't realize how many big names were in this movie. It's directed by Steven Spielberg, who is famous for countless cinema icons. It's produced by Peter Jackson, who is famous for The Lord of the Rings trilogy and others. The screenplay was written by Steven Moffat who is known for writing and directed smash hit BBC series Doctor Who and Sherlock. It stars Andy Serkis, who is best known for playing Gollum in Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit; Daniel Craig, the current James Bond; And Simon Pegg and Nick Frost who appear in many British comedy movies together. There's even a musical score by John Williams who did the music for Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Jaws, and Harry Potter. Could this cast and crew get any better!?

Speaking of Indiana Jones, The Adventures of Tintin resembles a kid-friendly Indiana Jones movie. There is a lot of action and a complex mystery to solve that begins with a couple of innocuous and seemingly unrelated events that all snowball into a large globetrotting adventure. What's really excellent is they give you enough hints to be able to solve the mystery along with Tintin. That means there are competent writers behind this script; everything is suitably well developed and the plot unfolds at a very agreeable pace.

The film is animated, and uses motion capture for the characters. The actors put on suits with sensors to capture the motion of the actors so the animated characters will move the same way. There have been a couple other movies which have done this, and some of them don't look so good; if the actors aren't physically expressive enough, the animated characters end up looking ridged and out of place in the animated world. That wasn't the case here. The movement of the characters was well captured and utilized, while also having some silly cartoony stunts that helped keep the animated movie looking like it was actually animated.

There is so much fine detail in The Adventures of Tintin! The detail in the characters is particularly astounding. Close-ups of the characters show some highly detailed skin; freckles, tiny blemishes, even finger prints. If not for slightly exaggerated features (like unusually large noses) to make the characters resemble the source illustrations, you'd swear they were real people.

One of the best scenes was a chase scene near the end. Our heroes and the villains are all after the same thing which stays more or less in the center of the screen as it is moved through and around buildings and cars. Everyone moves and jumps on and off screen trying to catch their target as the camera changes directions and angles in one long sweeping shot. It just boggles the mind how much work that one scene would have taken to pull off effectively. And it was beautifully done! That scene, and others, could easily have been motion sick-inducing but the pace is smooth and the action is well choreographed. 

The Adventures of Tintin was really quite good. It was much more intelligent and ambitious than any other 3-D family film I've seen so far. It was filmed in 3-D, so I imagine the 3-D is exceptional. I ended up seeing it in 2-D on Netflix Instant Play. There's an outstanding cast and crew, some solid characters, some good laughs, excellent action, and some incredible animation. The only thing I could see as being a red flag to parents is Captain Haddock's constant drinking; it's depicted as being a funny thing that is only somewhat discouraged. I don't think it's a good enough reason not to watch it as a family, but drinking should probably be discussed afterwards. I recommend seeing The Adventures of Tintin. It's a solid enough movie that I think it's worth the price to own a copy of, probably a 3-D version if you own or have access to a 3-D television. There's a good reason this is Nickelodeon's highest grossing movie.

Check out the trailer to see the amazing animation:

Do you have a favorite 3-D family movie? Which one is it and why did you like it so much? Comment below and tell me why!

Pacific Rim Review

When the trailers for Pacific Rim (2013) were released, it looked like it could have some potential. Once the movie hit theaters I kept hearing people say it was like Power Rangers for grownups. While Power Rangers is a bit hard to take seriously, the idea of Power Rangers for grownups sounded flipping awesome! Now that I've seen Pacific Rim, I think I can agree with the Power Rangers analogy.

When legions of monstrous creatures known as Kaiju, start rising from the sea, a war began that would take millions of lives and consume humanity's resources for years on end. To combat the giant Kaiju, a special type of weapon was devised: massive robots, called Jaegers, which are controlled simultaneously by two pilots whose minds are linked in a neural bridge. But even the Jaegers are proving nearly defenseless in the face of the relentless Kaiju. On the verge of defeat, the forces defending mankind have no choice but to turn to two unlikely heroes - a washed up former pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) and an untested trainee Mako Mori (Rinko Kikuchi) - who are teamed to drive a legendary but seemingly obsolete Jaeger from the past. Together, they stand as mandkind's last hope against the mounting apocalypse.

Guillermo del Toro co-wrote and directed Pacific Rim. Near as I can figure del Toro saw some Power Rangers episodes or an old Godzilla movie and went, "Bah! I can do better than that!" The movie starts out giving us a Lord of the Rings style prologue, a very quick summary of everything that has happened leading up to the beginning of the main story. We hear there's a portal at the bottom of the ocean, it took three days for tanks and fighter jets to take down the first monster, then after the second monster a new weapon had to be devised, and then describes why two pilots are needed to operate the giant robots. Really it's not too hard to take this prologue as it is; there really isn't anything so ridiculous (bearing in mind this is high end sci-fi) that we roll our eyes in exasperation. We accept it and then look forward to seeing these two monsters duke it out.

And duke it out they do! Really, the draw to see Pacific Rim is to see huge monsters fight. Was there any other reason to watch this movie? I can't think of one! While I don't normally like to use this cliché adverb, the monster fights are epic! The fights are drawn out, not short and quick; they have a massive scale, not just a brawl in a small arena; and they are intense. The movement for both the Kaiju and the Jeagers are stunning. They don't move quickly and effortlessly. The way they are animated gives them a strong sense of mass and weight. They move slowly as if heavily labored under their own weight. You really feel the scale of these things. That comes from a good director who can frame the action well. Yeah, we know they are big, but the camera work is so beautifully done that you are simply stunned by the enormity of the Kaiju and Jeagers. They aren't just big, they are colossal! I don't think we ever get to see them fit into a single shot. This shows some excellent camera work and directing.

So, there are some human characters in Pacific Rim believe it or not. Most were pretty standard characters. Becket is basically everything you'd expect from a washed up former pilot; tough and world weary. That's about all that character has going for him. He serves his purpose well and that's all he did. Mori was more interesting; she has a past, a desire to prove herself, and personal obstacles to overcome. then there is Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba), the commanding officer of the Jaeger program. He's a hardcore mentor character that whips our two heroes into shape; you can't have any doubts about this guy since he's such a competent and strong leader. My favorite characters were Dr. Newton Geizler (Charlie Day) and Dr. Hermann Gottlieb (Burn Gorman). They provide some much needed levity and comic relief; they have polar opposite personalities and disagree on all their research. They still play an important role in the story. There really aren't any characters that are awkwardly placed in the story or who don't serve a purpose, which leaves me thinking they are reasonably well rounded characters.

Guillermo del Toro has made another visually striking movie that is absolutely fun to watch. It is some high end sci-fi, but it's not so outlandish that we find it hard to take seriously. The monsters and robots are beautifully animated to make them seem as realistic as possible. The characters are pretty decent, the script flows well and reminds me of Independence Day a little bit, and those fight scenes are nothing short of epic. I highly recommend catching Pacific Rim in theaters if you can, this movie was made to be seen on the big screen. I didn't think I was going to enjoy as much as I did, but I think this is worth owning a copy of once it's available on Blu-Ray.

Do you have a favorite monster movie? What is it and why did you like that one in particular so much? Comment below and tell me all about it!

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey Movie Review

I'm sure most of us could tell some stories about rallying up friends to see the memorable Lord of the Rings movies. I hosted several all-day events where all three of the extended Lord of the Rings movies were watched in one day. They were great journeys that we, as movie goers, took to Middle-Earth. Finally we all get to make a whole new journey to Middle-Earth in The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012), and it was well worth it!

Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is swept into a quest to reclaim the Dwarf Kingdom of Erebor from the fearsome dragon Smaug. Approached by the wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellen), Bilbo finds himself joining a company of thirteen dwarves led by the legendary warrior, Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage). Their journey will take them into the Wild; through treacherous lands swarming with Goblins and Orcs, deadly Wargs and Giant Spiders, and Sorcerers. Although their goal lies to the East in wastelands of the Lonely Mountain, they must first escape the goblin tunnels where Bilbo meets the creature that will change his life forever ... Gollum (Andy Serkis). Here, alone with Gollum on the shores of an underground lake, the unassuming Bilbo Baggins not only discovers depths of guile and courage that surprise even himself, but he also gains possession of Gollum's "precious" ring that holds unexpected and useful qualities.

As a long time fan of Tolkien's stories and of The Lord of the Rings, I was chomping at the bit to see The Hobbit. Peter Jackson returned to direct this movie with every bit as much love and detail as The Lord of the Rings. It really felt like we were taking a new journey to Middle-Earth, and it was just as captivating as it was before. We revisit some key locations that we had seen in the previous films, and they looked just as detailed and beautiful as they did before. We saw familiar and new rooms in both Bagend (Bilbo's home) and Rivendell. We get to see familiar characters as they were before Lord of the Rings, which included some unexpected cameos, and plenty of new characters.

One of the most endearing things about Lord of the Rings is that they were perfectly spot on to how we imagined them from reading the books. The Hobbit does this, too, especially the scene where Bilbo is confronted by Gollum. If you've ever seen a movie based on a book that did such a perfect job depicting the story you read, you'll know what kind of a euphoric feeling it is to see it depicted just right on the screen. The Hobbit has several moments like this.

On the other hand, it's also got several scenes that were completely new to me. Peter Jackson obtained the rights to film material that only existed as J.R.R. Tolkien's notes. This expanded the story quite a lot, and made us aware of The Dark Lord Sauron's presence in this story and how events in The Hobbit set into motion events that lead up to The Lord of the Rings. It makes The Hobbit much more meaningful as part of a much bigger epic. However, I think this is also a weak point. I think the peripheral story points sometimes felt like red herrings that drew us away from the main story which gave the movie a kind of uneven and sometimes vaguely confusing quality. But "All good stories," as Gandalf intones, "deserve embellishment." These odd back stories were usually pertinent to the overall story; they weren't simply thrown in to pad the length of the movie. I still feel like some were unnecessary, but I have faith that as more of the story unfolds in future instalments, their purpose will become more clear.

The characters were spot on. Bilbo was a lovable, scared, and very reserved character that we got to see grow and become a hero. He's far from the stuff of legend yet, but he's getting there. Gandalf is still the wise sage with meaningful advice that even I took to heart. Gollum is just as wacky, bizarre, creepy, funny, and tragic as he was before. Thorin Oakenshield was an amazing character who had a strong presence and some interesting personality flaws with which he struggles. Nevertheless, he was an outstanding character whom I would follow on epic adventures given the chance.

I think part of what made The Lord of the Rings so memorable was the music. When a certain melody begins, who can help but think of the quaint and peaceful Shire where the Hobbits live? Or the ominous string instruments that permeate scenes where characters are tempted by The One Ring? We get a whole new set of music in The Hobbit, and it is gorgeous and feels as iconic and memorable as the music from The Lord of the Rings. Right from the opening credits I couldn't help but think that this is what Middle-Earth sounds like. The Dwarven company sings songs of their lost kingdom with great reverence that sounds like ancient hymns that would have been sung by druids of old; it sounds beautiful.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a really good first course in a whole new trilogy. The characters were great, the script was good, the sets were beautiful, and the special effects where fantastic! The pacing is a bit slow at the beginning, but picks up as soon as they leave The Shire. This is a really good adventure story that features some great characters who develop and grow. It ends on a positive note, but we absolutely get the feeling that bigger and greater things lie ahead for our new heroes. I'm anxiously looking forward to the next installment of The Hobbit trilogy. I highly recommend catching this in theaters while you can. I have a feeling this will be as big a cinema event as The Lord of the Rings trilogy was; you shouldn't miss out on it. It will be worth buying on Blu-Ray, but I recommend holding out for the extended edition. I enjoyed this so much, I want to get a copy of the soundtrack in addition to the extended edition Blu-Ray!

What scenes are you particularly looking forward to in the next two Hobbit movies? Comment below and tell me all about it!

A Dangerous Method Movie Review

As a psychology major, I was psyched to see this movie (forgive the pun). I’ve heard the tale of Sigmund Freud’s and Carl Jung’s diverging theories a good many times over in various psychology classes. Occasionally I have thought it could have potential to be a good biopic movie. A Dangerous Method (2011) was finally released, and I was anxious to see it. When I finally got the chance, turns out it was quite different from what I was expecting.

Suffering from hysteria, Sabina Spielrein (Keira Knightley) is hospitalized under the care of Dr. Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender). Jung has recently begun using the talking cure developed by Dr. Sigmund Freud (Viggo Mortensen) on some of his patients.  Spielrein’s psychological problems are deeply rooted in her childhood and violent father. She is highly intelligent and hopes to become a doctor, and eventually a psychiatrist. Later, Jung receives Otto Gross (Vincent Cassel) as a patient. Gross is a brilliant, promiscuous, and unstable psychoanalyst who prods Jung into the idea of an affair. The married Jung and Spielrein eventually become lovers. Meanwhile, Jung and Freud develop an almost father-son relationship. Freud sees the young Jung as a likely successor and standard-bearer of his theories. A deep rift develops between them when Jung begins to diverge from Freud’s belief that while psychoanalysis can reveal the cause of psychological problems, it cannot cure the patient.

Viggo Mortensen as Sigmund Freud is not a casting decision I would have made. I see him better suited in action roles, like in Lord of the Rings or Hidalgo.  I didn’t even think Mortensen looked the part of Freud. Once I saw A Dangerous Method my doubts were diminished.  Mortensen really does look and sound the part. He’s even smoking a cigar in every scene. Only once in a while did he seem to lapse into dramatic low tone that was more on par with Aragorn than with Freud.

Impressive as Mortensen is, the real credit must be given to Keira Knightley. She grants us a mind-blowing performance that seems to have been influenced by real patients suffering from hysteria. We see psychological fragility coupled with an intellectual toughness, which makes for an interesting character. She’s laughing like a madwoman one moment and frantically crying the next, and contorting her body in defensive positions. Then we see her slowing growing out of that state and into a calm and collected woman as her healing progresses. She played the mental condition so well, it’s disquieting to watch.

The way the story here is presented is not what I was expecting to see. It’s a very dialogue driven story. The dialogue is great and interesting, and you get a feel for Freud’s and Jung’s theories and views. But it’s almost as though most of the actual story was happening between scenes and we are mostly witnessing the characters discussing among themselves the real meat of the story after it happened. The movie does a lot more telling than showing. Granted the story is about the characters and how events affected them, but I would have liked to see more of the events themselves to understand why the characters are affected they way that they are.

There are two really great parts of the movie that are exceptions. The first part of the movie shows us Jung using Freud’s talking cure to help Spielrein. It’s still dialogue driven, but it was fascinating to see Freud’s theory at work. As a psychology major, it was almost like getting to witness the early psychoanalytic process as it was in the early 1900’s. Later we get to see Jung and Freud talking about their views. Freud is advocating the scientific method while Jung is discussing abstract supernatural concepts, and the tension mounts as their views conflict. Here we really see events happening; most other scenes simply talk about events happening.

Freud’s theories revolved a lot around the idea of sexual repression as the source of neurosis. As such, sex is discussed frequently in A Dangerous Method, though generally in an academic sense. There are also several brief sex scenes; you can’t seem make a movie about marital infidelity without them. The sexual content isn’t there to get a reaction from the audience; it really is pertinent to the story. But if you are offended by sexual imagery, discussion, or even partial nudity you may want steer clear of this film. Also because of this content, I wouldn’t recommend showing A Dangerous Method to young viewers.

A Dangerous Method isn’t what I was expecting from a Freud/Jung biopic, but it’s still a good drama. Even the details in costuming, lighting, and cinematography are impressive. If you don’t care for dialogue driven stories you may get bored with it. It would help to know something about psychoanalysis, or at least have an interest in learning, before seeing this movie. It’s a good movie that I think will appeal to only a small group of people, so I don’t recommend buying a copy or seeing it unless you are in that group.

What’s a dramatic movie about psychological problems that you thought was impressive? Comment below and tell me why!

Thor Movie Review

Marvel Studios has been making a lot of Super Hero movies over the past couple of years. Hardcore Marvel fans are getting revved up for the Avengers movie; hints of this major crossover movie have been dropped since Iron Man (2008). But possibly the most difficult Avenger to make a movie for would be Thor; he’s not human, he’s a god, most of his story and adventures don’t take place on Earth. Thor is so far removed from these other heroes that doing his story justice would be pretty tricky. Fortunately, 2011’s Thor movie (directed by Kenneth Branagh) pulled it off well.

Many centuries ago, a race of Frost Giants tried to take over Earth. A powerful race called the Asgardians lead by their king, Odin (Anthony Hopkins), thwarted the Frost Giants. These events became Earth’s Norse Mythology. Years later Thor (Chris Hemsworth), the son of Odin is to be made king of Asgard. The Ceremony is interrupted by some Frost Giants in the castle. Thor gathers some friends to retaliate against the Frost Giants’ home world, demanding answers. In doing so, Thor violates a treaty between the Asguardians and the Frost Giants. King Odin puts a stop to Thor’s juvenile, violent tirade and as punishment for Thor’s arrogance and stupidity, banishes Thor to Earth in modern day New Mexico as a mortal, stripped of his powers and strength. Thor, assisted by an astrophysicist college student Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), must try to recover his powers, atone for his mistakes, regain his father’s respect, stop the Frost Giant’s impending attack, and reclaim his place as heir to the throne of Asguard before his manipulative brother Loki (Tom Hiddleston) claims it for himself.

A big obstacle for the writers and film makers of this movie was that a majority of the characters are gods. Things could easily have gone overboard; making the characters so foreign to the audience that they wouldn’t be able to relate to the characters. But even the mortal audience can understand the sibling rivalry between Thor and Loki, being severely humbled, discovering what your limits are, and loosing the respect of someone you admire. Also, you get a sense of what each character is capable of doing or not doing. It was never remotely established that these characters can do anything at all; they do have the powers of gods, but they still remained believable within the context of their world setting.

The special effects and CGI graphics were stunning. Occasionally you get movies that are simply a display of visual effects with a weak storyline stringing them together like in Tron: Legacy(2010). The visual effects in Thor complimented the storyline so well that they simply blended together. Asgard was nearly completely done in CGI; it was pretty and sold the idea that here magic and science truly are the same, as Thor describes it. Traveling between worlds via the Bifröst was a colorful spectacle that was awesome to see, but still held to the movie’s color scheme and helped establish the power of the Asgardians.

The pacing of the movie was done well. The prologue, narrated by Odin, seemed a little bit rushed; similar to the opening prologue to The Lord of the Rings (2001). There was a lot of back-story to establish but it was important to the main events, and had they revealed the back story slowly over the span of the movie it wouldn’t have set up the main plot as well. It was important for the audience to be on the same page that Thor was from the beginning. During part of Thor’s duration on Earth the pacing slows down. But this, coupled with the far reaching expanses of desert, establishes the feeling of despair and of being lost. Aside from these two points in the movie, the pacing is fairly consistent and keeps the audience interested without allowing them to fall behind.

Thor was a well done film that was enjoyable to watch. Marvel fans will enjoy seeing it. Even those new to these Marvel characters will enjoy this film. Between Thor’s endearing dialogue, the stunning visual effects, and fun characters, Thor is certainly worth watching or adding to your home movie collection.

Who is your favorite superhero from The Avengers lineup? Comment below and tell me why!

Movie Review: Rise of the Planet of the Apes

We don’t seem to be getting a lot of original stories as of late. A lot of films seem to be based off of books, based off of comic books, based off an older movie, and even a few based off of TV shows. These are given labels like remake, reboot, and the nebulous label of “reimagining.” Batman was rebooted with Batman Begins(2005) and was such a success that it will be a long time before we accept a non-Christopher Nolan Batman. There was a recent 2010 remake of a 1981 fantasy movie, Clash of the Titans, by the same title. Director Tim Burton attempted to remake the 1968 sci-fi classic Planet of the Apes in 2001, which had a pretty negative critical reception. There were five original Planet of the Apes movies, followed by a live-action television series and an animated series. This was later followed by the Tim Burton monstrosity. Realistically, the first Planet of the Apesmovie starring Charlton Heston was the only good one of the lot, but the franchise has made a significant cultural impact. We seem to revere the original Planet of the Apeswith some degree of reverence and respect. This is why, when 20^th Century Fox produced yet another reboot entitled Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) directed by Rupert Wyatt, some of us cringed.

Will Rodman (James Franco) has a personal stake for developing a cure for Alzheimer’s disease; his afflicted father Charles (John Lithgow). When a chimpanzee shows remarkable progress with the latest strain of the cure, Will presents his findings to his boss, Jacobs (David Oyelowo), to show that the drug is ready for human trials. During the presentation, the chimp goes on a rampage and the Board of Directors pulls the plug on the program. It’s not until after the other test chimps were put down that they realized the rampaging chimp was protecting her infant. Unwilling to put down an infant chimp, Will takes it home to keep it safe. Charles has taken to reciting Shakespeare and incidentally names the infant Cesar. As Cesar grows up, it becomes evident that he has inherited the enhanced intelligence from his mother. Cesar reaches an unprecedented level of cognition and intelligence, and begins to question his own identity, wondering whether or not he is a pet. Will uses the cure he developed on his father, who ends up making a remarkable, but temporary, recovery. Will shows Jacobs the results and research begins again. Charles’ condition worsens and Cesar attacks a neighbor who is angry at Charles for attempting to drive the neighbor’s car. Cesar is sent to a primate facility by court order. Here he interacts with other apes for the first time in his life, and suffers some animal abuse by Dodge Landon (Tom Felton), one of the facility's workers. The abuse that Cesar endures causes him to resent some humans; he ends up leading a mass exodus and revolution against the humans.

If you look at any movie poster or website about Rise of the Planet of the Apes you see “Starring James Franco” plastered all over the place. Whoever did that can’t possibly have seen the movie. James Franco is really more of a supporting character. The main character is without a doubt Cesar. The motion capture for Cesar is done by none other than Andy Serkis; a phenomenal actor who played Gollum in the Lord of the Rings trilogy and Kong in Peter Jackson’s King Kong remake. Cesar’s character is actually quite complex and interesting. You can really empathize with what Cesar is going through, and relate to him when he’s finally had enough and chooses to revolt. Cesar isn’t out to kill the humans; he’s fighting for his freedom. He stops some of this fellow apes from killing some of the innocent bystanders, and he still has a relationship with Will. Cesar has to be one of the more interesting movie characters this summer. This is Cesar’s story, not Will Rodman’s.

It seems to me that the central theme in Rise of the Planet of the Apes is one of loss and abandonment. There is the often overused “man playing God” kind of theme where humans try to control the forces of nature and it blows up in their faces. Frankenstein (1931) and Jurassic Park (1993) are both examples of that theme. There’s also the premise of using potentially dangerous animals to try to find a cure for Alzheimer’s disease; that is exactly the same premise in Deep Blue Sea (1999 where sharks are used instead of apes. In Rise of the Planet of the Apes Will is trying to prevent the loss of his father, in addition to trying to fight the government so he doesn’t have to abandon Cesar. Cesar on the other hand lost his mother at birth, he’s abandoned by Will, and he loses some friends during his revolution. Loss, abandonment, and not having someone to comfort you when you are subjected to cruelty are causes of emotional hurt that strikes a chord with the audience. I think that is what makes Cesar such an interesting and relatable character. Under the same circumstances, would we not feel sad, lonely, or angry enough to retaliate ourselves?

If you are a fan of the original Planet of the Apes movie, you’ll notice a few throwback references in this new adaptation. You’ll see Charlton Heston briefly appear on a TV, Cesar’s mother is called “bright eyes,” and Cesar is constructing a model of the Statue of Liberty in one scene. Tom Felton’s character, Dodge, gets the honor or delivering two of Heston’s most memorable lines from the 1968 film: “It’s a madhouse! A madhouse!” and “Take your stinkin’ paw off me you damn dirty ape!” I’m not so sure Tom Felton has earned an exalted enough status to speak such sacred lines on camera, but to his credit he delivers them well and the scenes in which they were spoken were very dramatic and powerful and even left me stunned for a moment. Generally a remade movie will make some references to the original movie that they are (in most cases) destroying. There are plenty of them here, but unlike some remakes, this one doesn’t beat you over the head with them. Other references are really subtle. The orangutan at the primate facility who befriends Cesar is named Maurice, a nod to the actor, Maurice Evans, who plays the orangutan, Dr. Zaius, in the original film. If you haven’t seen the original film, you won’t be missing anything important in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes was indeed a good movie. It was worthy of having the words “Planet of the Apes” in its title. It has interesting characters, a good storyline, great effects, and some nostalgic references in it. There is a big set up for a sequel, and I would welcome it; I left the theater wanting to know what would happen next to Cesar and his newly formed community of intelligent apes. I enjoyed this enough that I want to get a copy on Blu-Ray when it becomes available. If Tim Burton put you off of ever watching another Planet of the Apes movie, do your best to block it from your mind and go see Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Batman and Robin (1997) did precede Batman Begins, after all; a rebooted movie can do better than its predecessor.

So, did you see Rise of the Planet of the Apes? Did you like it? Did you not like it? Tell me why. What is your favorite ape movie you’ve ever seen? Comment below!