The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug - 2013

"The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" - 2013
Dir. by Peter Jackson - 2 hrs. 41 min.

Trailer #3

by Clayton Hollifield

Going into the second movie of a trilogy, you have to know that you're in for the bummer installment.  In a three-act story, the end of the second act should set in motion whatever needs to be resolved in the third act.  Usually, movies aren't sprawling trilogies, and this all plays out over the course of a couple of hours (instead of seven or eight, when we're all done and before the extended versions hit home video).  If you want to see the template for this, you can consult the original Star Wars trilogy, where "The Empire Strikes Back" is the bummer movie.  So, entering "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug" (and much of a downer title is that?), you should expect that things are not going to end up well for Gandalf, Bilbo, and the thirteen dwarves.  So no complaining!

On the heels of the first film, we find Gandalf (Ian McKellan), Bilbo (Martin Freeman), Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), and the rest of the dirty dozen on the precipice of a giant forest that must be traversed due to time constraints.  Gandalf abandons the crew when something more pressing pops up, and the dwarves end up imprisoned in Elvish prisons, but still make friends.  When they escape, thanks to Bilbo's ingenuity, they continue their quest to reach the Lonely Mountain, and the dwarves can reclaim their ancestral land from a giant, possibly slumbering dragon named Smaug (voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch).

If you're familiar with the book, you'll know that this is the segment that contains both the giant evil spiders, and the escape down a river in wine barrels.  And, since Smaug is in the title of the movie, it's not really a spoiler to say that you'll also finally get a good look at the dragon (and all the riches he's hoarding).  Gandalf also has a solitary battle at a castle, which is separate from the rest of the dwarves and Bilbo's quest.  In terms of the overall tone, the first installment was more light-hearted than this one, but then again, number two out of three has to be the bummer movie.  What hasn't changed is the flair for exotic, vast settings, but a lot of them take place in vast, yet confining places (there was a lot of open space in the first installment).  In terms of the big pieces, I found the giant spider material a little underwhelming, not quite up to what comes across in the book.  On the other hand, the wine-barrel escape was spectacular, one of those action sequences that starts out well, tops itself, and then tops itself again after you think there's nowhere further to go.

Part of the joy of these films is seeing places that you've read about, and getting to nose around in them a bit.  The forest is appropriately awful and maddening, the wood elves' land is as interesting as any of the kingdoms shown in the first film.  The Harbor town, Esgaroth, is a foggy and grim place, ruled by a corrupt king played by Stephen Fry.  And finally, inside the Lonely Mountain lays untold riches and a foul-tempered dragon, and it's as awesome as if Uncle Scrooge's Money Pit had come to life.  Heck, even the bar that the film opens in, with a meeting between Thorin and Gandalf, is exactly the kind of bar I'd love to kill a few drinks in.  The entire world is appealing, and unique, and detailed, and widely varied.  This is the kind of movie you need to see on the biggest screen possible, so that you can wallow in the details and be overwhelmed by it all.

On the other hand, there isn't a ton of character development.  Gandalf is Gandalf, and he's got his own thing going on.  And by this point in the story, it's not really Bilbo's story, more a series of battles (as spectacular as they are) than a strengthening of character.  Only Thorin really develops, cracks appearing in his facade, with the very real possibility of power and riches within his grasp.  It's hard to complain about that; it's difficult to say that this film really stands on its own.  It relies on the emotional depth created in the first film to give resonance to the action here, which is fair enough.  Truthfully, we're having a very, very long film meted out a chunk at a time, and the final judgment of merit will come next December, when the entire thing is available.  Until then, it's enough that this one, for the most part, lived up to what I hoped to see on the big screen, and in a couple of instances exceeded it, and that I had a good time watching "The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug."  And, more important, that I'll definitely be at the theatre when part three is ready, anxiously waiting to see Smaug get his.

3.5 / 5 - Theatre (3D)

Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows - 2011

"Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows" - 2011
Dir. by Guy Ritchie - 2 hrs. 9 min.

Official Trailer

by Clayton Hollifield

There's something to be said for a well-done, fun franchise movie.  You can do so much worse at the multiplex to go see a couple of big stars do a big budget period movie.  As long as each installment delivers enough to have you smiling on your way out of the theatre, it doesn't need to be revolutionary or ground-breaking.  Every couple of years, you get to visit a character that you like again.  That's a fair bargain.

I don't really need to get into who Sherlock Holmes is, unless you're some kind of genius, Sherlock.  The characters are essentially the same as last time around, except Dr. Watson (Jude Law) is on the verge of getting married.  Holmes (Robert Downey, Jr.) doesn't look very positively on that development, but he's willing to stand by his friend.  Before that, Holmes interjects into a criminal plot being executed by Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams), at the behest of Moriarty (Jared Harris).  Irene is quickly written out of the film, and Moriarty refuses Holmes' request to leave Watson out of whatever mischief might pass between the two.  There is a stag party for Watson, shoddily organised by Holmes, where we are introduced to Mycroft (Stephen Fry), Sherlock's older brother.  Later, Holmes is forced to interject during Watson's honeymoon, as Moriarty proves that he's not interested in leaving Watson out of the equation.  From there, the larger mystery is a battle of wits between Holmes and Moriarty, sometimes literally, sometimes via physical confrontation, sometimes metaphorically.

I'm of two minds about Guy Ritchie's stamp on the Sherlock Holmes movies.  It's easy to see his visual flair and the trademark of his smaller budget films' story-lines: twisting heist plots with a large cast of real men who show a penchant for oneupmanship.  Even if it's coached in turn of the 20th century British language and mannerisms, Ritchie's Holmes is swaggering alpha male driven to success almost maniacally, and fueled by exotic substances to keep his motor running.  It's different than "Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels" or "RocknRolla" only on the surface.  But as much fun as those movies are, he seems very comfortable making this sort of big-time franchise film.  I wouldn't doom a director to make low-budget swear-a-thons for his entire career, so I suppose as much fun as those early films are, they'll always be available to go back and watch while Ritchie continues on this path.  Besides, it's not as if the Sherlock films are bad or anything.

I have some sympathy for people who worship the source material; a lifetime of reading comic books has put me in that category for more than my share of films.  I've never read a Sherlock Holmes novel, which is probably the best way to go into any given movie.  I couldn't tell you whether this was based on anything in particular, and I don't care to find out.  When someone is setting out to make any movie, the goal should be to make the best film possible.  So while I have no idea if there was a book partially set in a munitions factory, what shows up on screen is an excellent action sequence that goes from a violent direct, face-to-face confrontation between Holmes and Moriarty to a batch of rebels fleeing what seems like an army with that same munitions factory at disposal.  The actual fleeing is captured by very good editing and camera-work, and special effects that really do heighten the tension of the scene.  For a couple of minutes, we're taken from a crime version of a chess game into a war film, and it works.

And in a general sense, the film works.  It's better than the initial "Sherlock" film; it's still fun watching Downey, Jr. simultaneously border insanity and outsmart everyone, there's plenty of cleverness to the proceedings, and what's not clever can be pretty funny.  There's even a gag near the end that almost demands a repeat viewing (I, for one, am going to have to re-watch that scene at the minimum to see if there are shortcuts or if it's a matter of misdirection leading the viewer to not catch on earlier).  I'd have a hard time imagining that this will be anyone's favorite movie, but it's not supposed to be.  It's fun, it's a good sequel, and I'd show up for a third installment, should it come.

3 / 5 - Theatre