FILM: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
I'm no LOTR geek by any stretch, give me a gritty L.A. cop drama any day, but I watched, enjoyed and own blu-rays of Peter Jackson's epic Middle Earth trilogy and having never read The Hobbit I was more than prepared to sit through three more epic films to see what the fuss was all about.

What's it all about?

Ok here goes....sixty years before Frodo's journey to destroy the Ring, Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman) is recruited by Gandalf (Ian McKellen) to join a group of dwarves, led by kingdom-less dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), on their quest across to Middle Earth to Erebor the Lonely Mountain, the dwarves' former home, where Smaug the dragon resides. 

The Good:

• Familiar return to Middle Earth with re-appearances from many of the original cast
• Excellent lengthy prologue narrating a previously unknown history of the dwarves and creating the basis for film's story
• As with all Peter Jackson films, An Unexpected Journey looks fantastic
• Dwarves, elves, orcs and goblins

The Bad:

• Similarities to the LOTR story are hard to ignore - a quest of unlikely heroes getting into trouble on a journey across Middle Earth while being chased by Orcs.
• The film's protagonists, 13 dwarves, a hobbit and a wizard has much less diversity than the Fellowship and as such the character distinction for most of the group is minimal
• No doubt about it, the film is slow. The arrival and introduction of the group at Bilbo's house was a bore.
• I like Martin Freeman but after three hours his comedic fussy style and self-deprecation really began to wear me down. Still at least it wasn't three hours of Frodo and Sam.

Bearded Dwarf #1, Bilbo, Bearded Dwarf #2

Favourite line:

'These are Gundabad wargs. They will outrun you.' - Gandalf
'These are Rhosgobel rabbits, I'd like to see them try' - Radagast 

Stand-out moment:

Bilbo meeting Gollum and the Ring  

Like the film? Watch: Might be a crazy idea but maybe the original Lord Of The Rings trilogy?

Like the story? Read: Another unoriginal idea but The Hobbit by J.R. Tolkien

What my wife would say: Which one is he again? When is Orlando Bloom in it?

What the world thinks:

Rotten Tomatoes - 65%

Metacritic - 58/100

LAMB Score - 3.66/5

FILM: Monsters, Inc. (7/10)

Why did I watch it?

This was a pick by Mrs Media Worm, most likely with an ulterior motive of priming me to go and see Monsters, Inc..

What's it all about?

The monster inhabited city of Monstropolis is powered by children's screams and it's up to 'Scarers' and their assistants, like Sully and Mike, to keep the city running by scaring human children and collecting their screams. The monsters believe that children are dangerous and havoc begins when Sully accidentally releases a child into Monstropolis.   

Should you watch it?
When you stop and consider the subject matter, you realise how gifted Pixar actually are in being able to turn a story about monsters hiding in children's closets to scare them into a funny and warm children's animation. Imagine if Tim Burton has got his hands onto the story!

Monsters, Inc. looks great and tells a hugely original story, however I did find that the film largely relies heavily on slapstick jokes, for the younger audience, and lacks more subtle jokes for adult appreciation that some other children's animations do successfully integrate.

John Goodman is perfectly cast as the gentle Scarer Sully while Billy Crystal, voicing Mike, does become frustratingly annoying as the irritatingly talkative one of the pair.

FILM: Robin Hood (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
The Ridley Scott and Russell Crowe combo has served up some more than decent films over the years and I was definitely interested in seeing Scott's take on a British legend.

What's it all about?
Russell Crowe stars as Robin Longstride, an archer in King Richard I's army returning across France from the Holy Lands. Longstride interrupts a French plot to assassinate the King, who unbeknown to the French has already been killed. Impersonating Sir Robin Loxley, who was killed in the failed ambush, Robin escort the King's crown back to England with his closest soldiers and Robin continues to Nottingham fulfil a promise to the dying Loxley.
 
Should you watch it?
If the plot described above sounds nothing like any Robin Hood film or TV show you have seen before you would be right. This is Ridley Scott's story behind the legend. It's certainly a fresh take on the well known character and I think Scott should be applauded for not repeating the same story of Robin Hood and his band of merry men running amok in Sherwood forest. The true story of Robin Hood is shrouded in doubt and conflicting myths but I think that Brian Helgeland's (L.A. Confidential) screenplay probably stretches historical accuracy to the maximum you may expect of an American-produced film of a British myth.

That leads me onto my next point, the cast. Casting Russell Crowe as Robin, hmmm. Crowe brings a fairly stoic grittiness to the role but I can't help but feel that there were better options. The fact that Crowe is one of the films producers suggests his role as Robin was paid for. As angry as this may make Crowe, there is no denying that his accent in the film was plain off and seems to cover almost all UK regions at some point in time. With the exception of Mark Strong and Mark Addy, the cast is largely American and I found that frustrating as there are scores of British actors that could have played the likes of Little John, Will Scarlett and King Richard I at least as well as Danny Huston. Shows like Game of Thrones have shown that a largely British cast can deliver the goods. Cate Blanchett can be excused as I thought she was excellent as Lady Marian.

Towards the film's end I thought that the film began to morph into Kingdom of Heaven as Robin lead the British defence en masse against the French invasion force on the beaches of the South Coast. At this stage the story seemed to have veered too far away from the Robin Hood we know and love. 

An alternative take on the much told story of one of Britain's favourite characters and one that is worth a watch even if the gritty nature of Robin and his story take away some of the fun and adventure that always been associated with the character. 

FILM: John Carter (5/10)

Why did I watch it?
Following the reviews and declaration as a flop, this was a big budget blockbuster that I always intended to watch to form my own opinion on when it premiered on the small screen.

What's it all about?
Based on the character of Edwin Burrough's early 20th century novels, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is a Virginian Civil War Captain magically transported to Mars, known as Barsoom in this universe, where a civil war is being fought between the cities of Helium and Zodanga, both home to humanoid Martian races. Capable of increased strength and jumping because of the lesser gravity, Carter is reluctantly recruited to fight alongside Helium Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), to prevent the mysterious Thern's from scheming towards Barsoom's destruction.

Should you watch it?
Some time has passed since I watched John Carter and I certainly hold no grudges against it. It wasn't the complete write-off I was expecting, although it is certainly not without it's flaws. I think  I preferred it to Battleship, although I can't think of what I must have done to deserve being forced to choose between either.

There are times during John Carter where you could really be watching either Indiana Jones or Star Wars (Episodes I-III) such is the old fashioned, character-led, gung-ho adventure and sci-fi nature of the film. However, despite it being an adventure film of massive budget, I struggle to recall any action set pieces that took place, with the exception of the picture below, despite knowing that there must have been some. This cannot be a good recollection for an action blockbuster. 

I am not familiar with any of Burrough's stories and the screenplay certainly didn't help matters. Although the screenplay doesn't assume any knowledge of the character and the universe he belongs to and I appreciate that the writers are working with the original material, they made a seemingly simple plot far too complicated through the method of delivery. Surprisingly, and the surprise is relative, the script is only slightly clichéd in places and didn't stink to high heaven in the way Battleship's did. I did really like the context of the story being told from a young Burrough's perspective and the twist at the end was unexpected and satisfying.

My biggest gripe with the acting, and being such a massive fan of The Wire it pains me to do this, was with Dominic West. I thought he almost looked embarrassed to be on screen in most scenes and delivered one of the hammiest performances I think I've ever seen. Sorry Dominic. Lyn Collins was a vibrant presence and I felt Taylor Kitsch did enough in shouldering the responsibilities of the lead role, considering the film's inherent flaws. He certainly can't be held accountable for the films failings at the box office.

FILM: Oz the Great and Powerful (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

This film appeared at number six in my top ten most anticipated films of 2013, largely due to intrigue in the plot and it's relationship to the original.

What's it all about?

A prequel of sorts to the 1939 classic, Disney's Oz the Great and Powerful is set in 1905, and tells the story behind the arrival of carnival magician Oscar Diggs (James Franco) in Oz and serves as an origin story, shedding light on the relationships between the wizard and the three witches, Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz) and Glinda (Michelle Williams).

Should you watch it?
At heart Oz is a moral story of good and bad (the witches),  and good and great (Oz), though the journey of the characters  from one to the other are not always as complete (Oz) or credible as they could be (the wicked witch).

Starting with Oz himself, a 'magician' in Kansas, nothing wrong with that, he knows he is a fraud, but he is also an arrogant, womanising, unscrupulous shyster. By the end of the film, I'm not sure how many of those traits he has learnt the error of, despite upsetting most of Oz, before saving the day with a combination of earthly illusions and charm. James Franco's casting raised eyebrows, however I think he brought a degree of humility to the role that made Oz vaguely likeable. I am certain I could not have coped with Robert Downey Jr's (the producers first choice) style of arrogance in the role.

A flying monkey in a bellboy's outfit? Don't ask, it's Oz

Franco is supported by an accomplished cast of witches in Kunis, Weisz and Williams, and its Williams who wins hands down with her measured and gentle performance. Kunis is smouldering as always while Weisz seems to be trying too hard. Without giving anything away, I was disappointed in the transformation of one of the witches to the famous Wicked Witch of the West. The gravitas of the role seemed too much for the actress in question. Zach Braff adds value as Oz's beleaguered assistant in Kansas and the voice of a comedy sidekick flying monkey in Oz. The same can be said for Joey King, voicing China Girl with a sincerity that belies her years.

Director Sam Raimi delivers a vibrant, colourful landscape, similar to Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland, that looks sublime at times but sometimes the CGI was overpowering. The green screen certainly earned its pay-check. Raimi adds some neat references to the film's source, most notably the 4:3 sepia tone introduction in Kansas, which looks great in addition to the old fashioned style of shots.

Visually the film is impressive, if you can cope with the heavy CGI

Overall, considering my expectations I was slightly disappointed but there is just enough magic here, in Raimi's visuals and elements of the plot, to suggest the return to Oz was worthwhile. 

FILM: The Adventures of Tintin (7/10)

Why did I watch it?
Spielberg's first animated film, produced by Peter Jackson and based on the popular children's books, it seemed worth a watch.

What's it all about?
After buying a model of a famous ship, The Unicorn, Tintin becomes entangled in the villainous Sakharine's attempts to discover the ship's secret treasure. After being kidnapped by Sakharine (with Snowy obviously), Tintin escapes with Captain Haddock and helps him to unravel the mystery of his ancestor's sunken ship.   

Should you watch it?
Based on the books of the forties, The Adventures of Tintin is good clean fun and is a genuinely enjoyable film suitable for all the family. Spielberg's team of British writers, Edgar Wright (Hot Fuzz), Stephen Moffat (Sherlock) and Joe Cornish (Attack the Block) combine elements from three Tintin stories to produce an exciting adventure   but simple mystery.

Watching the fantastic looking animation, it's easy to forget that with the motion-capture, the actors aren't just providing voices but are responsible for all character movements. In terms of performance, Andy Serkis steals the show as the largely inebriated Captain Haddock. Simon Pegg and Nick Frost pop up as bumbling Interpol officers Thomson and Thompson for comic effect.

One thing I couldn't shake from my childhood was how serious, self-righteous and frankly annoying Tintin can be. Obviously that's a criticism of the character not of the movie, but this version didn't go anyway to changing my opinion.

Spielberg evokes pleasant memories of Indiana Jones in several chase sequences and action set pieces, none more so than the intrepid reporter and Haddock riding in a motorbike and sidecar. Not a bad thing at all.

FILM: Cowboys & Aliens (6/10)

Why did I watch it?

No particular reason, it just came along and looked a pretty harmless action adventure film.

What's it all about?

Daniel Craig stars as a cowboy who wakes up with no memory and a strange futuristic bracelet on his wrist. Apparently an outlaw, he is captured and taken to the local sheriff where he gets caught in an alien attack on the town, learning he capabilities of his bracelet in the process. The alien planes capture a few residents including local cattle baron Harrison Ford's son. Craig and Ford lead a rescue mission to retrieve the captives.

Should you watch it?

Based on a recent graphic novel of the same name, the concept of cowboys battling aliens is certainly a novel one but it doesn't really work for me. I expected more intrigue from a screenwriting team including Damon Lindelof. 

What you get if you cross a John Wayne film with Independence Day

I'm not sure if Jon Favreau and Universal Studios were trying to pitch this as a new Indiana Jones but Daniel Craig is not nearly likeable enough with his stereotypically surly cowboy. Ford is suitably gritty as the veteran gun-slinger finding his softer side. Granted there are some exciting scenes but overall it falls pretty flat in merging the two polar genres. One scene where Craig carries Olivia Wilde in his arms until he collapses in exhaustion simply made me want to watch True Grit instead. 

FILM: Moonrise Kingdom (9/10)

Why did I watch it?

I've never seen a Wes Anderson film before. There, I said it. The trailers for Moonrise Kingdom made it look like a quirky, fun film with a great cast and worth a look.

What's it all about?

Set on a peacefully quiet island off the coast of New England, two children, having only met once, set their pen-mail devised plan to runaway together into action. This leads to the islands eccentric inhabitants launching their own search and rescue mission to track down the wayward pair before a storm closes in.   

Should you watch it?

Quite simply, yes. Moonrise Kingdom is beautifully shot, Anderson uses rich warm colours throughout and the film has such a retro feel to go with the 60s setting. The opening credits sequence was spellbinding and the film rarely lets go from there onwards. The cast is fantastic,  the two young leads give performances that belies their youth and are supported by a brilliantly deadpan Bruce Willis character, Edward Norton, Billy Murray, Tilda Swinton and cameos from Jason Schwartzmann and Harvey Keitel.

The budding runaways

The screenplay is charming yet not without some serious undertones, in particular each child's motives for leaving but the film's offbeat humour (Swinton plays a character literally called 'Social Services') never lets the mood fall away from any other than pure adventure. Make no doubt that the children's naivety and innocence are the highlight of the film. The moment they meet up, Sam orders an inventory their equipment which includes an air rifle, a cat and six books before handing over some flowers to his young love. He later warns Suzy that he may wet the bed inside their tent. I'm reluctant to say anything further so as not to spoil the film for others.

Kingdom is supported by a score of classical music that fits perfectly with the eccentric nature of most characters and the old feel of the film.

A must see, and not just for Wes Anderson fans (as I mentioned I hadn't seen any of his films beforehand).

FILM: The Hunger Games (6/10)

Why did I watch it?
I had never heard of the Hunger Games series prior to the film coming out, proof if needed that I'm obviously not a 'young adult anymore! the other half came in with this the other day so I gave into the hype and gave it a go.

What's it all about?
Set in a fictional American dystopian future, a new nation called Panem is divided into 12 distinct districts and controlled by the powerful and rich Capitol. As punishment for an uprising some years before, The Capitol organise a yearly competition known as the Hunger Games where each district must send 2 competitors, one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18, known as tributes. The children are left to fight until the death until only one survives and is declared the champion.  

Should you watch it?
I was largely non-fussed by The Hunger Games. Having not read the books I've no idea how the adaptation compares but as a standalone film it wasn't bad but it wasn't too great either. The story borrows elements from The Truman Show, Running Man and Blade Runner among others. I should plead ignorance in having not yet seen Battle Royale, but I'm aware that the plot is remarkably similar. The point being that the plot is not awfully original.

The directing and editing in the districts did not work for me. The shaky camera work and chop editing might have been selected to create a sense of disorganisation and panic in the districts during tribute selection but I found it too much. Another gripe I had was the use of flashbacks by Gary Ross. Flashbacks of unseen footage provide the viewer with an opportunity to see what has previously occured and can be plot aids but why did Ross choose to show flashbacks of scenes we had already seen, one in particular several times over. I clearly missed the importance of the scene.

I felt the film was dumbed down in places, definitely in terms of violence, which I can understand with this being a Hollywood production with children involved but also with some of the script. A prime example being at the end when the game organiser announces that the rules are being changed spontaneously again, It is so obvious what the rule change is going to be but yet the characters are made to listen to the full announcement with a few more seconds afterwards to digest the rammifications.

There are decent performances from Jennifer Lawrence and Woody Allen so its far from all bad.

BOOK: Life of Pi, Yann Martel (9/10)

Life of Pi - despite appearances not a children's book!

Why did I read it?
I was really impressed by the trailer for the upcoming Ang Lee film adaptation and realising it was based on a best-selling novel decided to borrow the book from a friend. I'm never sure which is the best way round to read book or watch adaptations but there is no going back now.

What's it all about?
Life of Pi is a fantasy adventure about an Indian teenager named Pi, who finds himself the sole survivor of a shipwreck on-board a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger, a chimpanzee, a zebra and a hyena for company. It sounds surreal but the first half of the book describes a credible back story. Pi's father is a zoo-keeper and the family decide to sell the zoo and relocate to Canada, hence the voyage across the Pacific with a ship full of dangerous animals. 

Should you read it?

The upcoming film poster

The book takes its time during the first half to set the scene with the tale of Pi's upbringing at an Indian zoo, his experiences with animals and also his take on spirituality but once his ordeal starts its clear why Martel dedicates so much print to the back story.

In terms of Pi's detailed account of his practical approach to survival the story is similar to the real life survival of Aaron Ralston in 127 Hours (minus the tiger).

A word of warning, Martel doesn't hold back in graphically depicting the demise of the boat's occupants and I'm not normally affected by violence in films but when related to animals, in particular during a week when my cat was badly hurt, it was almost too much to take.

The book is a fascinating combination of religion and animal psychology and a harrowing tale of survival at all costs that I couldn't put down. I have very high hopes for the film.