missmediajunkie

"The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" feels like watching one of the extended editions of Peter Jackson's "Lord of the Rings" trilogy. These were the cuts that contained all the extra little scenes and digressions from the original books that were too unwieldy to be included in the theatrical releases. On DVD these additions were tolerable because watching the longer versions at home was considerably easier on the viewer than watching them in the theater. Also, by and large the audience had already seen the trimmer, leaner theatrical cuts and were already invested in the story and characters. The trouble with "Unexpected Journey" is that Jackson skipped over the version meant for general audiences, and went right into a longer version with all the callbacks and fanservice you'd expect in an extended edition. Thus what probably should have been a brisk, ninety minute action adventure is instead a gargantuan 169 minute slog.

When it was announced that "The Hobbit" was going to be broken up into multiple films, I was immediately apprehensive that there wouldn't be enough material to pull it off. Unlike "Lord of the Rings," "The Hobbit" is a much simpler and more straightforward tale, following the journey of the hobbit Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who is recruited by wizard Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan) to go on an adventure. They join a company of thirteen dwarves, led by warrior Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), who are traveling through the vast fantasy world of Middle Earth to reclaim the dwarf city of Erebor in the Lonely Mountain, which was conquered long ago by the dragon Smaug. "The Hobbit" is a shorter book than any of the individual volumes of "Lord of the Rings," and meant for younger readers. However, "Unexpected Journey" covers less than half of it. Peter Jackson expands the story by going outside of the book, extrapolating scenes from supplementary material. "The Hobbit" is also handled very much as a prequel to the "Lord of the Rings" films, including several cameos and other references that only work in the context of the previous films.

All the extra complication and worldbuilding do not do "Unexpected Journey" any favors. Though it follows roughly the same structure as "Fellowship of the Rings," "Unexpected Journey" doesn't have the same sense of urgency or momentum. Far too long is spent on introductory scenes with Bilbo and the dwarves, and several lengthy expository scenes setting up future events slow things down even further. The first half of the film feels interminable. Various new characters who did not appear in the book have been added to mixed success. There's one a major villain who is totally invented, Azog the Defiler (Manu Bennett), an orc warlord who is becomes a primary antagonist to Thorin. I don't object to his inclusion, since he helps to build up Thorin's character and keep the film's energy high. However, Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy), one of Gandalf's fellow wizards who briefly crosses paths with the company, probably should have been left on the cutting room floor with Tom Bombadil. The character doesn't translate well to film, and he feels oddly shoehorned into the proceedings.

After cutting away all the unnecessary bits, I do think there is a very good version of "The Hobbit" here. Martin Freeman makes a fantastic Bilbo, capturing his initial reluctance and doubt, and then his gradual transformation into a hero. The return of Ian McKellan as Gandalf the Grey is a delight, even if he doesn't get the strongest material for this outing. Jackson tries too hard to make Thorin into a idol figure, but I did like the way that his history was expanded to get the audience more invested in the plight of the dwarves. It wouldn't have been possible to individually spotlight and develop all twelve of the other dwarves in the company, and I'm glad Jackson didn't try. By the end of the film I could only pick out and name about six of them. However, we do get a good sense of how they operate collectively, and how they relate to Bilbo and Gandalf. They're also very important sources of comic relief, in a film that has a tendency to get too dark and glum.

Once Jackson does get past all the introductions and the detours and becomes a proper road picture, I was happy with it. The action scenes are a blast, the CGI creatures are properly menacing, and Middle Earth never looked better. In the opening scenes, it was a thrill to see the greenery of Hobbiton again, and to be able to peek into the familiar, cozy interiors of Bag End. The makeup and hair on the dwarves often say more about them than their dialogue. In spite of the issues I had with the film, it is abundantly clear that Jackson knows and loves Tolkien's world like no other. One section I was glad he didn't shorten was the famous riddle game between Bilbo and Gollum (Andy Serkis), featuring an astonishingly tactile, expressive Gollum. I didn't think it was possible to improve much on the Gollum we saw in "Two Towers" and "Return of the King," but Jackson and Serkis and the folks of WETA really went above and beyond to make that famous confrontation something special.

But as lovely as many of the visuals are, I have to take issue with the adjustments Peter Jackson made in order to shoot "Unexpected Journey" in 48 fps HFR. I didn't see the film projected in this format, because it was only available in the 3D showings, but I did notice the occasional overexposure of the lighting, certain changes in the color palette, and other little telltale adjustments that were made to accommodate the new technology. They weren't overly noticeable, but I did find them distracting, and that indicates that the HFR revolution is still very much a work in progress.

Ultimately I liked the first "Hobbit" movie and I'm glad it was made, but I was also frequently frustrated with it. Some of Jackson's changes to "The Hobbit " story worked well, but he pushed too far, forgetting that much of the charm of "The Hobbit" was in its child-friendly simplicity. I'll happily go see "The Desolation of Smaug" next Christmas, but it's not a title I'm looking forward to with nearly as much anticipation as I had before I saw "An Unexpected Journey."
---

Tis the season. Christmas is coming, and with it the first trailers for some of next summer's biggest movies, including "Star Trek: Into Darkness," Guillermo Del Toro's "Pacific Rim," and the new Superman movie, "Man of Steel." It's "Man of Steel" that's been on my mind lately. The recently released teaser posters have provoked a storm of discussion, and I've been faced with a familiar dilemma.

One part of me, the skeptic, the cynic, the Dana Scully in me, wants to reject the hype. Zack Snyder has directing duties, and I consider his work pretty shaky at best. Writer David S. Goyer isn't much better, responsible for some of the best recent comic book adaptations and some I'd rather forget about. I'm not against Warners making another attempt to launch a "Superman" franchise after the underperformance of "Superman Returns," but I'm not sure that this is the right creative team to do it with. The involvement of Christopher Nolan as a producer has been touted as a plus, but I'm not convinced that the darker and grittier sensibilities he brought to his Batman movie would translate well to a more idealistic, more fantastic superhero like Superman.

But then there's the Fox Mulder part of me, who wants so very badly to believe. I loved Richard Donner's 1978 "Superman" film as a kid, and was always a little disappointed that nobody got him right since, not in the cartoons, not in the television shows, and not in the modern movies. I look at that new teaser poster, and the possibility of "Man of Steel" being the Superman film I've been waiting for gets me terribly excited. Looking at the cast list, I'm not too familiar with Henry Cavill, the new man in the cape, but Amy Adams should make a great Lois Lane, and Michael Shannon is resurrecting one of the most entertaining villains from the older movies – General Zod. Remember General Zod? If the rumors about the return of Khan Noonien Singh to the "Star Trek" universe turn out to be false, we're still going to be getting some prime sci-fi villain ham next summer.

Then again, the choice of Zod seems a little desperate. It's worth nothing that "Man of Steel" wasn't greenlit because someone had a brilliant new take on the Superman mythos that roused Warners to action. No, it was a court case decided in 2009, the one that gave Superman creator Jerry Siegel's heirs the rights to Superman's characters and origins. The decision stated that if Warners didn't begin production on a Superman film by 2011, they could be sued for lost revenue on an unproduced film. That was the impetus for the new reboot, and it's not one that inspires much confidence. Considering all the false starts and dead ends over the years, Superman has proven to be a tough character to modernize. People are still passing around those awful costume test photos from the scrapped Tim Burton "Superman Lives" that would have starred Nicolas Cage.

But I did like that first teaser trailer that played with "The Dark Knight Rises," showing Clark Kent travelling the world and seeking answers. I liked that it looked different from any other take on Superman I've seen in a long time, and that the filmmakers are clearly not afraid to strike out in a new direction. And maybe getting a little darker and more serious wouldn't hurt, considering that the last time Warners tried to do something lighter and more fantasy-oriented with one of their superheroes, we ended up with "The Green Lantern." The trailer did show off some great visuals, and if the studios can reign in Zack Snyder's worst impulses and bad habits, we could get something really interesting.

Of course that's a big if, and Warners has had a lot more failures than successes lately with its DC superhero franchises that aren't about Batman. They're so far behind the Marvel films, it's no contest.

Considering how much Warners has riding on the film, though, including a potential future "Justice League" franchise, I'm sure they'll spare no expense and take all necessary steps to ensure success.

But Russell Crowe is playing Jor-El. We're not too keen on Russell Crowe.

But Laurence Fishburne is playing Perry White. We like Laurence Fishburne!

So here I sit, debating back and forth with myself, and instead of an angel and devil, I have Mulder and Scully from "The X-files" sitting on my shoulders, and both of them are somehow film nerds who have read too many film articles and comic-book geek discussions. And I haven't decided yet if I'm anticipating "Man of Steel" or if I'm dreading it, if I'm rooting for its success or hoping for minimal embarrassment.

All I know is that next year, whether it's a success or a failure, it's going to be big.
---

There's a substantial possibility that Wes Anderson's "Moonrise Kingdom" will make a showing in the major Oscar categories this year, so though my review is extremely late, it may still have some relevance.

Not having written about any of his previous films, I feel I should first say a bit about the director, who is one of the more polarizing figures in current American cinema. He has cultivated a very particular visual aesthetic that hasn't changed much over the last decade, which some viewers have heartily embraced and others have rejected as overly indulgent and repetitive. Anderson's rigid composition, penchant for long shots, retro stylings, and fetishization of objects has been well documented, analyzed, and parodied. The term "hipster" comes up a lot. However, Anderson has found new variations on these common elements, with an animated film in "Fantastic Mr. Fox," and an exotic travelogue in "The Darjeeling Limited." Some have worked better than others, but I think Anderson has been steadily heading downhill since the high of "The Royal Tenenbaums" back in 2001.

And so we come to "Moonrise Kingdom," which is a tale of young love told in the style of a fantastic children's story. Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward), a pair of glum prepubescent loners, conspire to run away together. While Sam is on an outing with his Khaki Scout troop on the picturesque island of New Penzance, off the coast of New England, he secretly meets up with Suzy, who he had met the previous summer, and the two make their escape into the wilderness. The adults responsible for them, Scout Master Randy Ward (Edward Norton), Suzy's parents (Bill Murray, Frances McDormand), and local Police Captain Sharp (Bruce Willis), must find the children before an impending hurricane arrives. Jason Schwartzman, Tilda Swinton, Bob Balaban, and Harvey Keitel also appear in smaller roles, but the film largely belongs to the two young leads as they explore the island together.

Wes Anderson fans and detractors will be quick to point out the whimsical production design, the precisely framed shots, and the slightly peculiar speech patterns of the characters – all typical of Anderson. And even though the director's favorite Futura font has been abandoned in favor of more whimsical calligraphic lettering, there's no getting around how familiar the whole film feels. Here are the lonely heroes, acting out in alarming ways because nobody really understands how they feel. Here are the dysfunctional families that need to be shaken up in order to come together more strongly. Here are the silly visual gags, delivered with a straight face. Here are a few minutes of charming animation. Here is Bob Balaban as your narrator, dressed like a jovial lawn gnome. Just 'cause.

In short, if you like Anderson's other films, and you like his style of storytelling, this film should work for you. If you find him insufferable, you may still want to give this a chance. The new variation this time around is the use of the kids' POV. Yes, it's the same Anderson story at its core, but filtered through the kids, the edges are softer, and the conceits are easier to cut through. Suddenly the stylized designs make sense, as they help the film achieve the look and feel of one of the fantasy books that the young heroine carries around with her. And where many Anderson heroes were men and women in arrested development, here the youngsters are pleasantly mature for their age. The story is also full excitement, with lots of camping and hiking and kayaking. Oh, and there's a hurricane, of course. And just when you think the kids are all sweet and innocent, we get a firm reminder that this is not a Hollywood film, and it's not rated PG-13 just for the smoking and fisticuffs. Twelve-year olds in this movie have hormones and act on them.

The younger actors prove capable at carrying the film, but that's not to say that the grown-ups don't pull their weight. The committed Scout Master is probably my favorite Edward Norton performance in years. Bruce Willis gives Captain Sharp some real heart, and he looks livelier than he has in most of the action films he's been in lately. I wish we got to see this side of Willis more often. Frances McDormand doesn't get enough screen time at all, but makes the most of it, and Bill Murray gets even less, but I'm not inclined to complain when he genuinely appears to be enjoying himself.

"Moonrise Kingdom" feels awfully derivative at times, and I don't think it hits the highs of "The Royal Tenenbaums" or "Rushmore," but it is the first Wes Anderson film I've felt so positive about in a long time. I'm not sure where Anderson is going to go from here, but I think he's proven that his formula or his template or whatever you want to call it, has proven very adaptable. And I'm very curious to find out where his inventories and his French pop songs and his zooms and overhead shots are going to pop up next.
---

It took a long time for me to warm to the charms of "Beasts of the Southern Wild." First there was the shakeycam, with its vertiginous framing and low-tech aesthetics. Then there was the disjointed narrative, which seemed to keep skipping forward in time. Then there was the setting, an abjectly poor bayou community living south of the Louisiana levies on the fictional Isle de Charles Doucet, referred to by the residents as the Bathtub. And then there were our two primary characters, a little five-year-old African-American girl named Hushpuppy (Quvenzhané Wallis), living under the haphazard care of her father Wink (Dwight Henry). Mostly she fends for herself as best she can, cooking her own food, minding her assorted pets, and visiting the teacher Miss Bathsheba (Gina Montana). She's the one who tells Hushpuppy about ruthless prehistoric creatures called Aurochs, who are being released from their frozen slumber by the melting icecaps.

Look one way at Hushpuppy's world, and it's all squalor and mud and terrible hygiene. Her rage-prone father doesn't seem quite right in the head, and it's not clear if he's taking care of her, or if she's taking care of him, though Hushpuppy is clearly a small child. She sets her house on fire early on in the film, when she's angry, and for a few minutes it's not clear whether she has more to fear from her father or from the flames. The whole community lives on the brink, even before their existence is threatened by storms and flooding. And yet, if you look at it another way, Hushpuppy's world is one of endless wonders, where the people live closer to nature and are closer in spirit to the beasts themselves. The relationship between Hushpuppy and Wink is as loving as it is fierce, and the fights they have teach Hushpuppy to be strong and self-sufficient. These are lessons that prove necessary to her survival in the Bathtub as the environment begins to change for the worse.

The story is told from Hushpuppy's POV, and has a strong magical realist quality. First time director Benh Zeitlin uses very rough, but evocative imagery, and intermixes events of the past and present, memory and fantasy. Hushpuppy imagines her mother is so beautiful, that water spontaneously boils when she enters a room. Blowing up a levy can somehow drain a flooded area. The Aurochs, who resemble giant boars with extra horns, are as big as elephants and trample everything in their path. Events don't happen in logical order, or follow the usual rules of causality, but the emotions that come with them are very real. Little Quvenzhané Wallis gives a remarkable performance as Hushpuppy, who is such a spark of willful liveliness, she easily carries the film through all its bizarre turns and dreamlike developments. Dwight Henry appalls, terrifies, invigorates, and then reveals his true nature, and will catch you off your guard each time. Neither of the leads are professional actors, and perhaps that's why they come across as so genuine to this particular place and time and culture.

"Beasts of the Southern Wild" was made on a miniscule budget of less than $2 million, and considering the sophistication of some of the film's images that doesn't seem possible. There are multiple scenes of storms, of fantasy creatures, and of impossible landscapes. Zeitlin has such a distinct visual sensibility that it's difficult to compare his work to anything else. There have been many stream-of-consciousness films, and many films that have been told from the POV of a child in a difficult situation. However, none have featured a bold, distinctive worldview quite like Hushpuppy's. It's not simply her world that is special, but her understanding of her particular place in it. "Leolo" and Terry Gilliam's "Tideland" have some themes in common, but nothing quite like strangely joyous sense of pride and purpose that "Beasts" achieves in the end, when Hushpuppy figures out how everything fits together.

I reiterate that it took a while for the mood and the tone of the film to really gel for me. It wasn't until Hushpuppy left the Bathtub that I appreciated the wild beauty of the place, and understood why its residents would be so resistant to leaving. And it wasn't until Wink and Hushpuppy were truly facing separation that it became clear how necessary they were to each other. And it wasn't until the closing moments of the film and the very last shot that the themes of environmental destruction, displacement, and community ties really hit home.

I'm not convinced that this is one of the best films of the year, as some have claimed, but it is certainly one of the most original and most promising debuts for everyone involved. And it's far more than it appears to be at first glance.
---

What happens to all your favorite video game characters when the arcade is closed for the night? "Wreck-It Ralph" imagines that they can travel to different games via their power cords and interact with each other when they're off the clock. The games themselves form their own separate little universes, where the characters live and work. One such game is "Fix-It Felix Jr.," an old-school "Donkey Kong" style action game where the villain, Wreck-It Ralph (John C. Reilly), tries to bust up an apartment building while the hero, Fix-It Felix Jr. (Jack McNabray), races to repair the damage. But on the 30th anniversary of the game's debut, Ralph is getting tired of being the bad guy and being treated like a menace. So he decides to break the rules and prove he can be a hero.

"Wreck-It Ralph" was made for multiple generations of video game lovers, the grown-ups who remember the days of 8-bit graphics and quarter-eating machines, and the kids more familiar with first-person-shooters and high-definition CGI avatars. The movie is full of references and cameos from dozens of different video games, some that only the older gamers who were around for the 80s are going to pick up on and appreciate. The big question is whether non-gamers and younger gamers are going to enjoy the movie. I think they will, because the Disney Animation artists have done a great job of constructing a full and fascinating universe to explore, with some very appealing conceits. In the "Wreck-It Ralph" world, like "Toy Story," the game creatures are aware that they exist to follow their programmed code and entertain the gamers, and their worst fear is that that their games will become "Out of Order" permanently, and unplugged.

Despite all the advertising featuring so many familiar game characters like Sonic and Q-bert, they only have minor cameos. Ralph and the film's original characters stay firmly center stage. Most of the action takes place in three games created for the film: "Fix-It Felix Jr.," a violent first-person-shooter called "Hero's Duty," and a candy themed go-cart racing game, "Sugar Rush." Ralph sneaks into "Hero's Duty" to try his hand at fighting aliens, meeting the tough-as-nails Sergeant Calhoun (Jane Lynch). Later he ends up in "Sugar Rush," where he befriends a bratty little wannabe racer named Vanellope (Sarah Silverman). "Sugar Rush" is especially eye-catching, a world where everything is made of candy and sweets. And the writers do not hold back with the candy-related puns.

Where "Wreck-It Ralph" is weakest is in its writing. The story is fairly simple and predictable, with a lot of old clichés and few surprises. I found the characters were strong enough to keep my attention, though. Ralph is a loveable, big-hearted galoot, but his frustrations with his lot in life lead him to make some rash and selfish decisions. I think Vanellope is going to be the hardest sell, since she's the kind of aggravating little moppet who some viewers will find too grating to take, but the inevitable friendship that develops between these two misfits is genuinely touching. The minor characters are also used very well, especially when Felix and Calhoun get paired up trying to track down Ralph.

And then there are the visuals, where "Wreck-It Ralph" is a constant delight. Even if you don't care about the story, it's hard not to be impressed by the abundance of inventive little details. Several of the characters in "Fix-It Felix Jr.," notably Felix himself, have a few frame-skipping pose-to-pose motions and vaguely blocky designs to reflect how they appear on the game screen, though most of the time they're rendered in typically flawless CGI animation. "Sugar Rush" has a full roster of racers for Vanellope to compete against, who I fully expect to see as a line of dolls in time for Christmas, along with countless candy citizens filling the stands during their races.

I can't think of too much to take points off for. Okay, the use of a certain pop song in a training sequence was pretty groan-inducing. And I don't think that Vanellope's creative insults are going to go over well with some parents. However, this is a major accomplishment for Disney Animation. I don't think I've ever seen a video game film that's come off as well as this, combining potent nostalgia with cutting edge technology. I've never considered myself a gamer, but there weren't many of the references that went over my head entirely. Video games have worked their way so deeply into modern pop culture, I think this one is going to appeal to a much wider audience than people might expect.

And though it wasn't based off of an existing property, there's no denying that "Wreck-It Ralph" is a video game film, made by exactly the right crew of gamer nerds and geeks who understand and love them best.
---

There have been many television shows about the agents of the Devil, including procedurals like "Brimstone" and "Millennium," and more lighthearted takes like "Reaper." The Devil is never explicitly mentioned anywhere in the first hour of "666 Park Avenue," but all the earmarks of the genre are apparent. The unsuspecting residents of the luxurious New York Upper East Side's fictional 999 Park Avenue are tempted and seduced by the building's owners, Gavin and Olivia Doran (Terry O'Quinn, Vanessa Williams), into committing some capital sin in exchange for their heart's desire, and then the pair collect on the price with the aid of supernatural forces, usually manifesting through the building itself. In the pre-title sequence, we see a violinist unsuccessfully trying to flee the scene, but he only gets a few feet away from the beautiful residence before being literally sucked back inside.

The show's protagonists are a young couple, Jane Van Veen (Rachael Taylor) and Henry Martin (Dave Annable), who have been hired as the new on site co-managers of the building, responsible for day to day upkeep. Henry keeps his day job as an attorney who works for the mayor's office, while Jane is an unemployed architect who takes an interest in the building's history. As soon as they move into their posh new apartment, delighted at their good fortune, Gavin and Olivia start working their claws in. This is clearly a long con, and we are only in the very early stages of the seduction phase, but the Dorans' tactics are clear. Henry has political connections they wish to exploit while lovely Jane has caught Gavin's eye. Jane is positioned as the show's central figure, who not only digs up several ominous historical documents during the hour, but gets a major supernatural warning as well.

Meanwhile, other residents are a little further along in the process. Among the show's regulars will be another young couple, playwright Brian (Robert Buckley) and fashionista Louise (Mercedes Masöhn), who are headed for a dangerous love triangle when Brian's roving eye lands on Alexis (Helena Mattsson), Louise's new assistant who is also a resident of the building. Then there's the thief in the building, Nona (Samantha Logan), a teenager who lifts small trinkets, but is clearly courting big trouble. Finally, two characters who we may never see again after the pilot are John and Mary Barlow (James Waterston, Lucy Walters). Mary is quite dead from an apparent suicide, but Gavin brings her back for John on the condition that he kill a few people on the Dorans' behalf. This arrangement is brief and doesn't end pleasantly. However, from the long list of future recurring characters on the show's roster, the vacancy should be filled pretty quickly.

"666 Park Avenue" is going to follow the format of a late evening soap, full of illicit betrayals and other bad behavior by beautiful people, except with supernatural consequences. Unfortunately, I don't think the horror elements really do much for the show. They're not campy or toothy enough to be much fun, and not scary enough to offer any real thrills. Though they feature heavily in the promos, the special effects are a bore, and the atmosphere is sorely lacking. I like seeing Terry O'Quinn and Vanessa Williams as an evil Mephistophelean power couple, but you don't need to be an agent of the Devil in order to pull that off. The rest of the cast is going to have to hustle to catch up to them, though. I'm already far more interested in how the Dorans met and got themselves into this soul-collecting racket than I am about the Barbie and Ken doll hero and heroine who have stumbled into their little web.

However, there is something fascinating about seeing a parade of hapless, weak-willed television creatures fall victim to their own worst natures week after week, and I can see this series becoming something like a gleeful "Touched by an Angel" in reverse. With so many anti-heroes running around these days, it is nice to see a show with more old-fashioned definitions of good and evil, of right and wrong, where we know the comeuppances are coming. That element, more than any long-simmering romantic tensions or any murky series mythology, is going to be the show's best chance at attracting and keeping an audience. At this point most of the show's regular players are simply too generic, and are going to need a few more shades of gray if their fight to stay uncorrupted is going to actually be a proper fight worth watching. It'll probably take a few weeks of spotlight episodes to tell one way or the other.

I think I'll stick around for another episode or two, at least long enough to see if Vanessa Williams will get to cast a few people into Hell the same way that Terry O'Quinn did in the pilot. I admit that was the part I was really looking forward to.
---

Hello! If you don't know the drill by now, what follows are links to previous blog posts I've written, along with updates and further thoughts that I wanted to put down, but I didn't feel warranted an entire new post by themselves. Lots of television and superhero related stuff this time. Here we go.

Can We Talk About the Justice League? - After the success of "The Avengers," there's been a lot of chatter about an upcoming "Justice League" film that would skip the individual introductory films and just go straight into a big team adventure. Will Beall was hired for scripting duties, release dates have been rumored, and Ben Affleck was offered the chance to direct, which he declined. The most interesting wrinkle here is that it Warners is going to fast track this movie, they're not going to wait for a Batman reboot, opting instead to introduce the new version of the character in the "Justice League." Also, it's not clear if the film will have any direct connection to "Green Lantern" or the upcoming Zack Snyder "Superman."

Where Are the Female Directors? In Television! - Alas, only one Emmy nominee to add to the list this year, Lena Dunham for "Girls" in the Direction for a Comedy Series category. Good luck Lena!

Keeping Up the Theatrical Habit and The New Dominant Media - As we're slogging through the post-summer doldrums, financial analysts keep charting further declines in the fortunes of the movie studios. This past weekend, theaters had the lowest attendance numbers in over a decade, and there appears to be no relief in sight. There has been another round of studio soul-searching as a result. Gavin Polone wrote this great piece about the comparative quality of current television and the movies, detailing the dysfunctional movie development process that that favors unoriginal concepts and franchise properties. This is the reason why it feels like you've seen everything playing at your local multiplex already.

My Second Annual Holiday Wishlist - I've been pretty happy so far. "Akira" has been put on the back burner at Warners. "Twilight" is giving way to "The Hunger Games." Nobody spoiled anything too important about "The Dark Knight Rises" or "The Avenger" for me, and Josh Larsen is doing a pretty good job so far at filling the shoes of Matty Robinson on the Filmspotting podcast. On the other hand, that last "Doctor Who" Christmas special was only so-so and the fourth season of "Community" remains a giant question mark.

A "Munsters" Reboot? Really? - Bryan Fuller's "Munsters" reboot is now "Mockingbird Lane," starring Portia de Rossi and Jerry O'Conell as Lily and Herman, with Eddie Izzard as Grandpa. A four minute trailer for the pilot was shown at Comic-Con over the summer. There was some talk of the series being a prequel focusing on the courtship of Lily and Herman in their younger days, but the current version has newcomers Mason Grant and Charity Wakefield in the roles of Eddie and Marilyn, so it looks to be a pretty straightforward update of the original series.

Evil Queen Ascendant - After seeing all of their movies, I wasn't too impressed with most of the villainesses I discussed. Julia Roberts in "Mirror, Mirror" was pretty mediocre. Charlize Theron's role as Meredith Vickers in "Prometheus" showed some potential, but it was completely squandered. Her nasty evil queen in "Show White and the Huntsman" was much more fun, but the movie was pretty blah. As for Catwoman, I have no complaints about the Anne Hathaway performance, but I wasn't all that enamored with her either. To date, my favorite villainess of the year is Marge Nugent from "Bernie," played by Shirley MacLaine.

Thundercats" Ho! - After twenty-six episodes on the Cartoon Network, it does not appear likely that the new "Thundercats" reboot is going to get a chance to come back and finish its story, which ended on a cliffhanger. The ratings sank after the premiere, and the show's creators are starting to scatter to other projects. It's a real shame, because I've recently caught up with some of the later episodes, and the quality of the animation and the worldbuilding and character development stayed pretty stellar throughout the whole run. The worst part is that this will probably discourage studios from doing similarly ambitious shows in the future. Oh well. At least I've still got "Korra."

I Gotta Talk About "Wonder Woman" - Finally, last week Vulture reported that the CW is going to try and crack the "Wonder Woman" reboot after David E. Kelley's version went down in flames last year. It's currently only in the earliest scripting stages, with the working title "Amazon," and will likely be an origin story skewing to a much younger audience than the last one. Note that there's also supposed to be a "Wonder Woman" feature film in development, which might complicate things.
---

Kristen Stewart has picked up some bad habits, hasn't she? I've purposefully avoided the "Twilight" films and didn't manage to catch her in anything else in the last couple of years, so I didn't realize how poor her acting had gotten. I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt, but she didn't seem to be paying attention half the time in "Snow White and the Huntsman." I'm still trying to decide if she was miscast or if she just didn't have it in her to play the role. To be fair, it wasn't much of a role. If you've seen the posters, you've got a good idea of what the filmmakers were going for in this version of "Snow White." What we have here is a dark and gloomy action movie doused in CGI imagery, where the princess is obliged to strap on plate armor and ride into battle alongside her Prince Charming and a hunky Huntsman.

The evil Queen Ravenna (Charlize Theron) marries and murders Snow White's father as a prelude to her conquest of his kingdom. Thanks to magic, she can stay young and beautiful forever by draining the life out of others. She keeps Snow White as a prisoner for years until she comes of age, intending to consume her pure heart to gain immortality. When the girl escapes into the Black Forest, Ravenna sends her loathsome brother Finn (Sam Spruell) and a drunkard Huntsman (Chris Hemsworth) they have forcibly recruited, to go after her. Snow White is intent on reaching the castle of her father's ally, the Duke (Vincent Regan), to rally his army against Ravenna. Meanwhile the Duke's son William (Sam Clafin), Snow White's childhood friend, learns of her escape. He joins Finn's group incognito to find and rescue her.

Director Rupert Sanders has a great visual eye. He pulls off some absolutely gorgeous fairy-tale visuals that should put him in high demand with the studios for future effects spectaculars. However, the visuals are about all he's got. "Snow White and the Huntsman" is very weak in other areas. The dialogue is dull, the editing is uneven, and the pacing is awful. There are several segments where the film slows to a crawl, usually when it's trying to advance the lukewarm romances between Snow White and her suitors. The Huntsman and the Queen are the most compelling characters of the lot, thanks to the efforts of Chris Hemsworth and Charlize Theron. The Queen in particular is probably going to be what the film is remembered for, especially Theron's scenery-gnashing, over-the-top performance. That approach didn't really work in "Prometheus," but it's a good fit here.

Oh, the dwarves? They show up very late in the picture, but they do show up, and they're some of the film's better special effects. A digitally shrunken Bob Hoskins, Ian McShane, Toby Jones, Eddie Marsan, Ray Winstone, and Nick Frost, among others, lend their support to Snow White's cause. They're a rough bunch, but do add some much-needed moments of humor and fun in a movie that is too often lacking both. And considering the caliber of the acting talent, I don't understand why the dwarves aren't in more of the movie. I can see the logistical problems of having all seven throughout, but how about just one of them? As is, the dwarves just show up suddenly without any forewarning, and because of the changed dynamics of the plot, they never get as much attention as they should. Even the "Mirror, Mirror" dwarves are better differentiated and get more of the spotlight.

Speaking of "Mirror, Mirror," the two adaptations don't have much in common at all. "Mirror, Mirror" is aimed at a younger crowd and their parents, while "Snow White and the Huntsman" wants to appeal to the same action-hungry audience that went to see "Clash of the Titans" and the Russell Crowe "Robin Hood." "Snow White" pays lip service to the romance, but it's much more concerned about fights with CGI creatures, battle sequences, and badassery. There's very little blood, but a lot of violence and stony-faced intensity. The Queen's transformations and attack spells may also be too much for younger kids to take. "Snow White" has a few places where it shows off typically beautiful fantasy visuals, but on the whole it's much grimmer and bleaker.

And this brings us back to Kristen Stewart, who I'm sorry to say does not carry the film the way she should. Visually she fits the style, and she's not actually required to do much acting for most of the film, but when Stewart is put front in center, her choices are so odd and so lacking, her performance becomes more of a distraction than anything else. Like the film, she's very pretty, but seems awfully confused, and ultimately does not deliver.
---

I've finally seen "The Hunger Games," and came away pretty impressed by it. I don't think that it's a great film by any measure, but it has some very good ideas, and is an interesting departure from most of the other major studio franchise stuff we've been seeing lately. So as a point of comparison, I think I should also talk a bit about "John Carter," one of Disney's most recent attempts to find a new blockbuster franchise that came out around the same time as "Hunger Games." The two couldn't be more different in their material or their filmmaking sensibilities.

First you have "John Carter," which is an old fashioned boys' adventure story that is designed to be epic spectacle. The title character, a former Confederate soldier played by Taylor Kitsch, gets to run around Mars doing battle with hundreds of digital creatures, foil dastardly plots, save the noble heroine from getting married to the villain, and then wed the lady himself. The story is messy, full of wild concepts that are barely explained, and people with very silly names. It fits the pattern of pretty much all the other recent Disney adventure movies, from "Prince of Persia" to multiple "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies, to "TRON Legacy." Lots of chases and battles, not much characterization for the leads, a stale romance, and a happy ending, of course. "John Carter" is a bit stronger than the others because it feels much more committed to its concepts. If they're going to give us spectacle, then it's going to be a grand spectacle. So the world of Barsoom is much better conceived, designed, and executed than any of the others. There are multiple characters with major speaking roles who are totally CGI creations. The digital environments look better than anything in the "Star Wars" prequels. You can clearly see where all the money went, and it was well spent. The technical wizardry goes a long way in making up for the muddled plot and mixed performances. If you stop trying to make sense of the story, "John Carter" is a pretty fun, if terribly shallow popcorn movie.

And then we have "The Hunger Games," about a yearly Battle Royale competition put on by the rulers of a corrupt future dystopia. The young participants, culled from an oppressed populace with much pomp and circumstance, are forced to fight to the death for the entertainment of their tyrants. We follow the fortunes of two contenders, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), who come from the same poor district. The competition is brutal, but fairly bloodless and non-explicit, which may disappoint some action fans. However, "The Hunger Games" is much better at exploring the ins and outs of other strategies that Katniss and Peeta employ to help them win what is essentially a reality show. They have to find ways to make themselves more sympathetic and interesting to the audience, because popularity gives them concrete advantages in the competition, like medicine and food. The attitude of the film toward media is very cynical, and we spend a significant amount of time behind the scenes, watching the game controllers manipulating many of the outcomes from a control room. The Games are also clearly a tool of the ruling government, designed to sow fear and maintain control, functions that Katniss finds ways to challenge. There is a lot of interesting thematic stuff going on here that I wish the filmmakers had explored a little more in depth.

What really struck me was the gritty realism of the film. There's a lot of handheld camera work, a lot of subdued lighting, and nearly all the scenes during the Games are shot in natural environments. There's heavy use of special effects, including CGI creatures, but "Hunger Games" maintains a roughness and a verisimilitude that is a total break from the polished fantasy worlds of "John Carter" and "Harry Potter." It looks more like one of the "Bourne" films, and the early scenes in District 12 could have come straight out of "Winter's Bone." Even the score reflects this, a collaboration between James Newton Howard and T-Bone Burnett that incorporates a good amount of folk music. I was doubtful of the choice of Gary Ross as director, since his filmography didn't contain much that pointed to him being a good fit for this series, but his choices were very bold, and he succeeded in making "The Hunger Games" distinctive and different from any other current run of fantasy films aimed at a younger crowd.

On the other hand, it's a pretty uneven movie. Jennifer Lawrence's performance is fantastic, and the film benefits from spending most of its time following her. However, several of the minor characters are pretty flat, the Games themselves unfold in a very rote and predictable fashion, and a couple of the most emotional moments don't come off well at all. There's also a sense that the filmmakers were holding themselves back as far as the content, because of who the film is aimed at, which undercuts a lot of the impact. And there's so much left unexplained and unremarked upon. One of the most intriguing parts of the film was the audience POV becoming one and the same with the audience of the Hunger Games broadcast in the movie, so some of Katniss and Peeta's conversations and actions that we see may actually be staged or exaggerated, but we never find out to what extent. The ending is awfully abrupt, and if I didn't know there was a sequel coming, I would have felt much less satisfied with the whole film.

"John Carter," on the other hand, had a strong and solid ending, and though I'd love to see a sequel, it stands perfectly well as a singular story. I think it's a real shame that its release was so bungled, because "John Carter" features a lot of gorgeous work by talented artists, and I think many blockbuster lovers would have fun with it if they gave it a chance. However, it's not the special effects groundbreaker that it was promised to be, and frankly it comes off as pretty lightweight next to the grim sophistication of "The Hunger Games." Looking at these two movies side by side, you can see the divide between the old school of fantasy film, the "Star Wars" style adventure epic, and a darker, sharper fable that feels much more relevant and timely for the kids of today. As much as I enjoyed "John Carter," there's no mystery why "The Hunger Games" left it in the dust.
---

This isn't a proper and objective review of the recent adaptation of Dr. Seuss' "The Lorax," because, frankly, it does not deserve one. I tried to give the new "Lorax" the benefit of the doubt. I really did. I'm not very attached to the original story and don't have any nostalgic feelings about the book or the cartoon version from the 70s. I was expecting to sit through an hour and a half of brightly colored Seussian nonsense and spectacle, employed in the service of retelling a very old and familiar tale. The spectacle is all I got.

From the very beginning when I heard that "The Lorax" was being made by Illumination Entertainment, creators of "Despicable Me" and "Horton Hears a Who," I knew that they were taking a risk. So far, their films have been fun, but totally weightless fluff. "The Lorax," on the other hand, is a story about something quite serious. It has very clear moral and social messages to impart, messages that had to be treated respectfully, or else the story would not work. To be fair, Illumination's "Lorax" does present many pro-conservation, pro-environment, anti-corporate, and anti-consumerist ideas and arguments. However, they are imparted very glibly and gently, perhaps too gently. Sure, we've all sat through awful pro-environment cartoons before, the ones that hit you over the head with the worst case scenarios that could result from pollution and deforestation, but at least they were wholeheartedly behind their messages.

"The Lorax," by contrast, comes across as much more flippant about its raison d'être. Part of this is the fault of all the story padding, which was necessary to turn a 45 page children's picture book into an 86 minute film. In the original, a nameless little boy living in a polluted wasteland visits the Once-ler, whose face we never see, to learn how his home came to such an awful state. The Once-ler tells the story of how he destroyed the once abundant surrounding forest to enrich himself, despite many warnings from a creature called The Lorax. In the movie version, the little boy is now named Ted (Zac Efron), and a huge portion of the film is taken up with his crush on a pretty girl, his life in a town where all the greenery is artificial, and the machinations of a new villain, O'Hare (Rob Riggle), an unscrupulous businessman who sells clean air.

Once we finally get to the Once-ler (Ed Helms), his story has been significantly altered and expanded too. The Once-ler is made into a sympathetic character, a young entrepreneur in the flashbacks, who at first befriends the Lorax (Danny DeVito) and all the woodland animals. It's only after a lot of invented hijinks and slapstick that the Once-ler lets his ambitions get away from him and destroys the forest. The actual destruction is drastically de-emphasized, and most of it happens over the course of a single song number. The events that took up most of the original "Lorax" add up to about five minutes of the movie. Meanwhile, we have multiple subplots, chase sequences, songs, and Betty White playing Ted's dotty old grandmother, that have been added to keep the movie light and entertaining. And all these pleasant little distractions end up completely smothering everything about "The Lorax" that made the story a classic.

The movie goes to great lengths to remove or lessen the impact of anything that could be seen as upsetting or controversial, and ends up seriously undercutting itself. The forest is destroyed, but it happens quickly, and the film barely gives us any time to feel sad about the poor animals being displaced. The Once-ler is completely neutered as a villain, and O'Hare is far more silly than threatening. The Lorax, who was originally a lone voice of reason against the nightmare forces of industrialization run amok, comes across as more of a pestering orange grump, since the fight for the forest is so brief and the Once-ler is merely misguided, man, rather than a real meanie in need of reform. And the bad consequences of deforestation? Ted's plastic hometown seems perfectly happy despite having to pay for fresh air. Heck, Ted only goes looking for the Once-ler in the first place because his girlfriend wants to see a real tree.

"The Lorax" that Dr. Seuss wrote is a morality tale, perfectly simple and straightforward and easy for children to understand. The movie is a compromised, bloated, unwieldy thing that pays lip-service to the book, but doesn't understand it. Sure, you could make a good "Lorax" movie with songs and jokes and pretty colors, but without seriously addressing the concerns that were at the heart of the story, all you have is soulless fluff. And I'm afraid that's what the movie is. It's a terrible missed opportunity for Imagination Entertainment, and a disappointing waste of great material.
---