Just us, the cameras, and those wonderful people out there in the dark...
Showing posts with label Peter Jackson. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Peter Jackson. Show all posts

Wednesday, January 29, 2014

Review: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013)

* * *

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evageline Lily

I was a bit cool on An Unexpected Journey, the first entry in the Hobbit trilogy, finding it overly padded and lacking in impact compared to The Lord of the Rings series, though I did ultimately find more to like about it than to dislike. I'm more enthusiastic with respect to the follow up, The Desolation of Smaug, though I still think that The Hobbit is a far cry from the magic of The Lord of the Rings, and I still think that this new series has some pretty serious structural and narrative problems. On the plus side, this film isn't stopped dead by singing and it has a pretty exciting villain in its titular character. The downside is that the presence of so many Dwarves still hasn't been justified, given that only about four of them have discernible personalities, a problem exacerbated by the arrival of a bunch of new characters.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

* * *

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage

In the immortal words of Milhouse Van Houten, "When are they gonna get to the fireworks factory?" Not that Peter Jackson's long awaited return to Middle Earth with The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey isn't a perfectly entertaining film, but it does feel padded beyond necessity. Much of it is thrilling, some of it is a little boring... it's a mixed bag, basically, but worth seeing despite its flaws.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

The Best Picture Countdown #76: The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)


Note: this post is modified from a previously published post

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Orlando Bloom, Sean Astin

Each of the three Lord of the Rings films are distinct and strong enough in their own rights as films, but taken together you get a story that is epic in every sense of the word, a visual and narrative experience that is almost beyond imagining. The films transcend the boundaries of genre, becoming not simply a standard for fantasy films, but a standard for filmmaking period. They aren’t perfect films to be sure, but even their flaws are lovable when considered as part of the overall experience of watching this story unfold.

It is impossible to talk about The Return of the King without also talking, in part, about the two films that precede it: The Fellowship of the Ring and The Two Towers. The first film sees the formation of the team of heroes determined to destroy the one Ring that could rule all of Middle Earth, and the separation of the four hobbits from the rest at film’s end; the second film charts the parallel journeys of the two halves of the team as the dark forces grow stronger, threatening to become unstoppable. The Return of the King finds everyone coming back together again and ultimately triumphing over evil. The usual tropes of the genre are present here, but they’re also given a twist. For example, instead of one hero who must battle the exterior forces of evil and the interior forces of self-doubt in order to realize his destiny, here we have two such heroes. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is the hobbit who must travel across the darkest spots of Middle Earth in order to save it, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is the man who must accept the destiny he has always tried to avoid and become the ruler who will unite the kingdoms of Middle Earth. Their journeys are equally compelling, each offering a different take of the idea of heroism. The supporting characters are compelling as well, from the hobbit sidekick Sam (Sean Astin) to the Elvin princess Arwin (Liv Tyler), and of course the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan).

Much has been made of the special effects in the films, and rightly so. What is presented here is CGI at its most breathtaking. While I often find CGI distracting and overused, here I find it fully engrossing because it’s done so well and fits so seamlessly into the world where the story takes place. There are many great examples across all three films, but the best use of CGI is in the creation and portrayal of Gollum (Andy Serkis). This is a character so fully realized, so completely fleshed out and three dimensional (both literally and figuratively) that you can watch the films and forget that this is an animated character. Admittedly I’m biased because just about anything involving Gollum qualifies as a favourite moment of mine from the films, and because I’m one of the people who thought Andy Serkis should have been able to get a Best Supporting Actor nomination because what he does here goes so far beyond voice-work and it’s s shame he couldn’t get more recognition for it.

This is a story of amazing scope and action and features some incredibly well crafted battle sequences, but the power of the story isn’t simply and solely in the sword play. There are moments in these films that are incredibly moving and which lie at the heart of the story. Some of my favourites scenes from Return of the King include the scene in which Pip (Billy Boyd) sings a mournful ballad to a king, whose only surviving son has ridden into battle on a suicide mission in order to please him; and the scene in which Sam’s shows his determination to ensure that Frodo realizes his goal, even if he has to carry him on his back. These are films that make you care so much about the characters and each gets to have a moment to shine, to be the centre of scenes of great resonance and power.

Like the vast majority of films, these ones have their flaws. The flaw of Return of the King is that it has about eight different endings that unfold one after the other and sort of lead to a petering out of the film. But, ultimately, this is a very minor thing and the trilogy can be seen as nothing less than a masterpiece of technical and artistic achievement. Few filmmakers have ever dared to aspire to the lofty heights to which director Peter Jackson soars with these films.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Review: The Lovely Bones (2009)


* * 1/2

Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Saorise Ronan, Stanley Tucci, Mark Wahlberg, Rachel Weisz

With the crash and burn that was one-time hopeful Amelia's release now a distant memory, it seems that The Lovely Bones has officially usurped the title of Awards Season Punching Bag. There has to be one every year. Is it deserving of the amount of vitriol it seems to have inspired? No, but in a sense I can understand where all that is coming from because it's such a mixed bag of a film. Parts of it are absolutely glorious and others just don't work at all - I can't remember the last time I left a film feeling so divided about it.

The Lovely Bones tells the story of Susie Salmon (Saorise Ronan), who at 14 is raped and murdered. The film works its way up to that event, first taking time to establish the relationships that will be severed and damaged by her loss. Although there are some underlying tensions in her family - her parents (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz) love each other but have grown apart, and Susie is in the midst of that particularly dramatic stage of adolescence defined largely by awkwardness and unprovoked hostility (I remember it well) - it's a close knit group and, in a general way, happy.

One evening Susie walks home alone and is lured into a trap by Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci), one of her neighbors, and never seen again. Her father becomes obsessed with tracking down various leads, some of which he's invented; her mother deals with it by not dealing with it at all; her grandmother (Susan Sarandon) tries to breathe life back into the household; and her sister Lindsay (Rose McIver) becomes increasingly suspicious about Mr. Harvey's behavior. Meanwhile, from a place in between heaven and earth, Susie watches over them and in some instances tries to guide them towards the truth about her murder.

I should preface this by saying that I've never read The Lovely Bones, but from what I understand it's more an exploration of how the Salmon family deals with their grief rather than a thriller about bringing a killer to justice, which is what the film version is more than anything else. In certain respects it works as a thriller - the scene in which Lindsay breaks into Harvey's house is particularly taut and effective - but, at the same time, it shifts the story's focus, taking it away from the victim and giving it to the killer. I think that that's the primary reason why the scenes in the in-between place fail to resonate as deeply as they should. Of course, there's also the fact that the afterlife is made to look like a glossy, candy colored, CGI explosion, but I think that this visual aesthetic could have worked if the story was constructed differently. One of my favourite scenes actually takes place in that CGI paradise as Susie watches a series of ships in bottles (like the ones she used to make with her father) crash against each other and the rocks of the shore. However, as beautifully realized as the imagery in the scene is, it's ultimately not very meaningful because by reducing Susie to a glorified secondary character, the film leaves itself with nothing to anchor the story.

The film is at its strongest in the build up to Susie's death, as it focuses on the dynamics of the Salmon family. When it moves away from this and, essentially, splits into two narratives - Susie is heaven, the family and her killer on earth - it ceases to be cohesive and instead becomes a series of set pieces. Some of these pieces do work, but others fail and the lack of any real grounding in the story results in something that's kind of soulless - ironic, given the premise.

In the end, I think that The Lovely Bones is a noble failure. The performances are strong (Tucci seems to be getting the most notice but I thought Wahlberg was really great as well) and the film itself is occassionally brilliant, but Jackson's vision of this story is too muddled. Too often it feels false and hollow - Susie's version of heaven might be accurate to her, but Jackson certainly didn't make me believe in it - and just doesn't connect with the audience.

Monday, March 17, 2008

100 Days, 100 Movies: The Lord of the Rings trilogy (2001-2003)


Director: Peter Jackson
Starring: Elijah Wood, Viggo Mortensen, Ian McKellan, Sean Astin, Orlando Bloom

Each of the three Lord of the Rings films are distinct and strong enough in their own rights as films, but taken together you get a story that is epic in every sense of the word, a visual and narrative experience that is almost beyond imagining. The films transcend the boundaries of genre, becoming not simply a standard for fantasy films, but a standard for filmmaking period. They aren’t perfect films to be sure, but even their flaws are lovable when considered as part of the overall experience of watching this story unfold.

The story centers on a group of heroes determined to destroy the one Ring that could rule all of Middle Earth. The Fellowship of the Ring sees the group formed and, at the end, separated; The Two Towers charts their parallel journeys as the dark forces grow stronger, threatening to become unstoppable; and The Return of the King finds them back together again and triumphing over evil. The usual tropes of the genre are present here, but they’re also given a twist. For example, instead of one hero who must battle the exterior forces of evil and the interior forces of self-doubt in order to realize his destiny, here we have two such heroes. Frodo (Elijah Wood) is the hobbit who must travel across the darkest spots of Middle Earth in order to save it, and Aragorn (Viggo Mortensen) is the man who must accept the destiny he has always tried to avoid, and become the ruler who will unite the kingdoms of Middle Earth. Their journeys are equally compelling, each offering a different take of the idea of heroism. The supporting characters are compelling as well, from the hobbit sidekick Sam (Sean Astin) to the Elvin princess Arwin (Liv Tyler), and of course the wise wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellan).

Much has been made of the special effects in the films, and rightly so. What is presented here is CGI at it’s most breathtaking. While I often find CGI distracting and overused, here I find it fully engrossing because it’s done so well and fits so seamlessly into the world where the story takes place. There are many great examples across all three films, but the best use of CGI is in the creation and portrayal of Gollum (Andy Serkis). This is a character so fully realized, so completely fleshed out and three dimensional (both literally and figuratively) that you can watch the films and forget that this is an animated character. Admittedly I’m biased because just about anything involving Gollum qualifies as a favourite moment of mine from the films, and because I’m one of the people who thought Andy Serkis should have been able to get a Best Supporting Actor nomination (what he does here goes so far beyond voice-work and it’s s shame he couldn’t get more recognition for it). One of the most visually and psychologically powerful scenes from the films comes in The Two Towers when Gollum and his other/better side Smeagol confront each other. Smeagol is the side that is still somewhat human, Gollum is the side that has been destroyed by his obsession with the ring, and the interplay of the two – both of whom are separate and distinct characters – is fascinating to watch. And even though Smeagol “wins,” there remains that darker undercurrent, the danger of Gollum (the Gollum in all the characters which represents greed and lust for power, and which we occasionally see peeking out of Frodo) that runs through all three films.

This is a story of amazing scope and action and features some amazing battle sequences, but the power of the films isn’t simply and solely in the sword play. There are moments in these films that are incredibly moving and which lie at the heart of the story. Some of my favourites include the scene in Return of the King where Pip (Billy Boyd) sings a mournful ballad to a king, whose only surviving son has ridden into battle on a suicide mission in order to please him; Sam’s determination in the end to ensure that Frodo realizes his goal, even if he has to carry him on his back; the arrival of Gandalf on the horizon when the battle for Helm’s Deep seems lost; and the scene in The Two Towers where Arwin and her father discuss her future with Aragorn, and he describes to her a life that will only result in heartache for her when Aragorn inevitably dies while her own life will carry on. But she sees the future herself and won’t be swayed. There is death, “but there is also life.”

Like the vast majority of films, these ones have their flaws. To me the most glaring is the off-screen defeat and comeuppance of Saruman (Christopher Lee) which takes place between the end of The Two Towers and the beginning of The Return of the King, but I know other people who think that about the only thing wrong with any of the films is that fact that Return of the King has about eight different endings. However, regardless of these and other minor quibbles, the trilogy can be seen as nothing less than a masterpiece of technical and artistic achievement. Few filmmakers have ever dared to aspire to the lofty heights to which director Peter Jackson soars with these films.