As a Tolkien fan who does not like Peter Jackson’s adaptation of T
he Lord of the Rings trilogy, I expected nothing good from his take on
The Hobbit - but I was pleasantly surprised. Though the film is not without flaws, Jackson brings to life Tolkien’s tale with an atmosphere of charm and good-natured humor. At the heart of the success of this adaptation is the excellent portrayal of Bilbo by Martin Freeman (from the UK version of
The Office), who strikes just the right balance between the comic and the serious throughout the film. He is assisted by the supporting cast’s equally superb depiction of the thirteen dwarves, whose characters are well developed and individualized. Cate Blanchett, furthermore, is as majestic as before in her role as Galadriel, Christopher Lee is just the right kind of creepy as Saruman, and once again, Andy Serkis makes for an excellent Gollum. Perhaps the only weakness in the cast is Ian McKellen’s portrayal of Gandalf. Is he too hesitant, uncertain, self-questioning as the wizard? Or can we find those traits in the Gandalf of the books too, in certain passages of the Tolkien canon? Tolkien fans (myself included) will no doubt debate the question extensively.
As in
The Lord of the Rings films, Jackson does a phenomenal job at creating the feel of Middle-earth. The scenery, the sets, the costumes are all exceptional. True, the computer generated creatures look somewhat less than realistic, but that’s a short-coming of all CGI dependent movies.
At 2 hours and 49 minutes, the first installment in
The Hobbit trilogy is admittedly lengthy, but the film moves at a good pace and does not feel long. Tolkien, among many other esteemable qualities, was a master dramatist, and Jackson gives the venerable author’s scenes just the right amount of room to take flesh. What is more, in this film, unlike in parts of
The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson seems more trusting of the power of Tolkien’s sense of drama and dialog, and refrains from sprucing up the more dramatic moments with unnecessary special effects.
The frequent battle scenes can feel a bit tedious at times, but they seem to be resonating well with the younger audiences for whom this film seems primarily intended. At the same time, the battle scenes, as well as the overall tone of Jackson’s interpretation, make the film much less of a children’s story than Tolkien’s original book, no doubt in order to connect the new trilogy more seamlessly with the earlier one. Jackson also introduces some extraneous elements to the plot, which, not too surprisingly, don’t work very well (it’s always a mistake to second guess Tolkien’s storytelling), but these are not major changes and can be excused in an otherwise well executed adaptation. In any case, Jackson deserves much credit for retaining (at least so far) the deeper, underlying philosophical themes of
The Hobbit – the themes that give the story its true strength, and which serve to make this film much more than just a spectacular adventure flick.
IMDb Link
If the Eclipse movie was a dark point for the series, Breaking Dawn, Part 1, brings new light. As the story continues, Bella and Edward tie the knot and prepare to live happily ever after. However, their luxurious honeymoon is interrupted when Bella realizes that she is pregnant, and the vampire-human hybrid baby in her womb seems certain to destroy her from within. In the meantime, the werewolves are mad - and they are ready to go to war against the Collins, because they consider the treaty broken. However, Jacob, who is nursing his emotional wounds, still wants to protect Bella.
The story may not seem great, and it isn't, but it ends up working very well on the screen. True, the computer generated werewolves look fake, and the wolf pack powwows are down-right silly, but everything else falls into place nicely. The acting is excellent all-around. The perpetually (and comically) self-indulgent drama of the couple's relationship is well portrayed, with enough light-heartedness to allow us a good chuckle or two - and some good laughs - along the way. The by now infamous birth sequence has just the right degree of creepiness. (To be honest, I am not sure how this scene could cause seizures, as it supposedly did in some theaters, but no doubt I need to learn more about how seizures work.)
Breaking Dawn, Part 1, is not great filmmaking, but it is an engaging presentation of approximately half of the 4th book in the series. But before you get too comfortable, hold on, the Volturi are coming, and they are not amused... 
There is very little to say about Eclipse, the third installment of the Twilight series, except that it is very bad. This movie picks up where New Moon, the much better second part, left off. After the various mistakes and misunderstandings of that story, Bella and Edward are finally reunited, but their self-indulgent enjoyment of nothing but each other is interrupted when a menacing force active in Seattle seems to be plotting to destroy Bella. Add to this lethal danger the possibility that Bella might have feelings for the werewolf Jacob too, thereby finding herself in a complicated love triangle, and we should have some good dramatic tension. 
But we don't. The story, despite solid performances by at least some of the cast, just does not come alive. To make matters worse, the mountain fighting sequence, the climax of the movie, is all too obviously shot on a studio set. Was there really no budget or time for some location footage? The movie also suffers greatly from the replacement of Rachelle Lefevre, the original Victoria, who was simply perfect for the role, by Bryce Dallas Howard, a regrettably much less well suited choice. 
Two British, stereotypical sci-fi nerds (Simon Pegg and Nick Frost) come to America for the Comic-Con convention, after which they set out on a road trip to visit sights sacred to fans of science fiction and to UFO enthusiasts. This pilgrimage takes an unexpected turn when they encounter an alien (of the little gray men kind), who had escaped from government custody, fearing for his life. Our British sci-fi buffs now find themselves in a mad scramble to help their alien friend in his quest to phone home and leave the planet, with sinister forces seeking to stop them. 
Paul is not nearly as funny as it seems to want to be, though science fiction fans will find lots of clever references to the sci-fi canon. The Christian vs atheist debate of our culture is incorporated into the story, but both sides are inadequately presented. Christians, who definitely come out the losers, might object that many religious thinkers have woven evolution into their worldview, and have a far more nuanced and science-friendly perspective than this movie would give them credit for. On the other hand, atheists might resent the stereotype, which is often used against atheism and is embraced by the movie, that without religion there are no rules, there is no ethics. 
But perhaps the biggest flaw of Paul is the horrendous special effects. The alien title character is entirely computer generated, and he is not at all convincing. He simply looks too fake, which is impossible to ignore, thereby marring an already pretty weak flick. 
Mohammad is a young student at a boarding school for blind boys in Tehran. When the school year ends, and it is time for him to go home, his father, who lives in the picturesque Iranian country-side, tries to avoid bringing him back, so that having a blind child would not get in the way of his plans to remarry - however, he has no choice but to take his son home with him. Adored by his grandmother and his sisters, Mohammad has no problems integrating into village life. But his father seems determined to rid himself of his son, setting in motion a chain of events, which ultimately leads to an emotionally overpowering ending. 
Director Majid Majidi's subtle, slow-moving, but irresistibly griping style is on full display. Using simple, everyday circumstances, he masterfully explores questions of psychology, sociology, and spirituality. His beautiful cinematography brings home with painful poignancy for the viewer the visual world that a blind person will never experience. At the same time, he shows us that with some accommodation from the seeing world, blind people can be high functioning members of society.
