The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012)

Slightly overlong but well worth the trip.

When it was rumored earlier this year that Peter Jackson would be adding a third movie to his adaptation of The Hobbit, I was doubtful. If he could fit a one-thousand page narrative into three movies, surely he could do three-hundred pages in two. Jackson was, of course, also adding some material from what Star Wars fans would call the expanded universe, which is to say the numerous story-adjacent texts that flesh out things behind the scenes. Though mention is made of 'the Necromancer' in the original novel, we don't spend any time there, yet Gandalf does disappear for a time to take care of his wizard business. From author Tolkein's other histories, however, we see the connection between the Necromancer and Sauron, the villain of The Lord of the Rings. As such, it makes a lot of sense that this is territory Jackson and company would want to explore, but is it enough to justify a further three hours or would it largely be padding to line the pockets of the myriad of companies involved? Further, how was the film's new HFR (high frame rate) 3D technology?

But, first, let's talk about next year's Star Trek Into Darkness. I attended an IMAX 3D show of The Hobbit specifically so I could see the first nine minutes of the upcoming Star Trek film. Though an increasing number of films have been embracing IMAX of late, I had not attended a showing until last month, when I saw Skyfall in IMAX. Despite the additional cost, I must say I was very impressed with the experience. Besides the larger format of the screen, the balance/fine-tuning of picture and sound was phenomenal. I sought out a de-facto IMAX theatre, though, not one of the many 'converted' theatres cropping up all over. With the growing popularity of the IMAX format, a lot of multiplexes are simply 'converting' one of their preexisting theatres for IMAX. I say 'converting', however, as true IMAX is intended to be viewed from a specific, optimal distance which the experience is balanced for. Unfortunately, these 'converted' locations largely end up as nothing more than a slightly larger screen accompanied by a $4 surcharge. So, when presented with another reason to go to the IMAX, I hoped to return to the same theatre however, as I soon discovered, only specific venues would have the Trek footage - specifically, IMAX digital locations, ie largely the 'converted' theatres. The movie was so long already that the additional footage made things untenable for the traditional IMAX locations.

Either way, the footage was definitely a lot of fun, and it was great to see those characters back on the big screen once more. The nine minutes opens with two parents visiting their terminally ill child. The father, played by Doctor Who's Noel Clarke, is visited by John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch), a man claiming to be the only hope for saving the child's life. Then we cut to another planet, in media res, where Kirk (Chris Pine) and Dr. McCoy (Karl Urban) are fleeing from the natives, while a nearby volcano threatens to erupt. Meanwhile, Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zoe Saldana), and Sulu (John Cho), fly overhead in a shuttle, trying to complete their mission before it's too late. Inevitably, before long, Spock finds himself in the center of the volcano, from where the crew has no way to retrieve him, which of course is where the preview ends - but not before Spock suggests they leave him, characteristically citing that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. The sneak peak goes far not to give anything away about the film's larger plot (who is the mysterious Harrison, and does he have the powers he implies?), while still packing the action-punch we saw in the previous installment. While certainly worthwhile, I don't know if it's worth the extra expense just to see the additional footage. On the other hand, if you're already thinking about seeing the film in IMAX, be sure and check this list for participating theatres in your state.

Alright, now let's finally talk about The Hobbit. I saw the film twice: once in IMAX 3D and once in HFR 3D. First, let me lead off by saying that I'm not a huge fan of 3D movies, though admittedly it's growing on me. In fact, though I had always intended to see the film in HFR 3D (to see what the technology was like), the only reason I saw it in IMAX 3D was for the additional Star Trek footage, otherwise I would have definitely seen it in 2D. After some great trailers for next year's films (which included Star Trek Into Darkness, Jack the Giant Slayer, Oz the Great and Powerful, and Man of Steel), and after getting past the plumes of smoke to my right, from the punk with the electronic cigarette, not to mention the large black man to the left of me that spent the first few minutes dodging the 3D effects for the amusement of his girlfriend, followed by what I can only assume was some vital, life-saving text-messaging on his part through the middle of the film, I was off to Middle Earth once more.

The film begins with a prologue, depicting the ancient dwarven home of Erebor and its eventual fall to the dragon Smaug. All this is told to us by Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm), as he writes it all in a book for his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood). Now notice an issue up front, I'm already talking about characters from another film. This film is supposed to take place sixty years previous, and indeed it does. However, its telling is framed within The Lord of the Rings: the Fellowship of the Ring (2001), and much of its early attention is focused there, as Bilbo prepares for his birthday party and complains about his less desirable relations. Eventually, we do make the jump and hop back six decades to the actual story we're here to see. A much younger Bilbo (Martin Freeman), is visited by the wizard Gandalf (Sir Ian McKellen), who is looking to recruit him for an adventure. Of course hobbits, such as Mr. Baggins, are notoriously opposed to such things. However, once he's made up his mind, a wizard is most stubborn indeed. As such, a little later, dwarves start showing up at Bilbo's house for dinner and there's not much he can do to stop them. They make quite a mess and he's most annoyed about the whole thing. Eventually Gandalf himself shows up, followed eventually by Thorin Oakenshield (Richard Armitage), the leader of the dwarves.

At this point, everyone settles down to business and plans are made. The dwarves (thirteen in all) intend to retake Erebor, and they're looking for a burglar to help them. Gandalf has submitted Bilbo as such. Eventually, through much cajoling on the part of the wizard, Bilbo is convinced to come when the party sets out the next day. Along the way, everyone gets into many adventures, fighting trolls, orcs, goblins and more. Through it all, Bilbo does a lot of soul-searching about whether he deserves - or even wants to be - there and tries to prove himself to all assembled. Finally, deep within the Misty Mountains, Biblo has an encounter with a creature called Gollum (Andy Serkis) that will forever alter not only his own life but the future of Middle Earth forever. Further, Thorin encounters an ancient adversary he thought long dead that will stop at nothing to see him meet the same fate. Rounding out the company of dwarves are Graham McTavish, Ken Stott, Aidan Turner,  Dean O'Glorman, Mark Hadlow, Jed Brophy, Adam Brown, John Callen, Petter Hambleton, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, and Stephen Hunter. Reprising their roles from the The Lord of the Rings are Cate Blanchett as Galadriel, Hugo Weaving as Elrond, and Christopher Lee as Saruman the White.

Myself, I'm a big fan of dwarves and The Hobbit is one of my favorite books. Correspondingly, I have an appropriate hatred of the elves, for some reasons which, bordering on future spoilers, I won't include here. Either way, throughout the whole Lord of the Rings film trilogy, I felt like they were going out of their way to make the elves seem cool. However, at least in the books, the elves are just as flawed as everyone else. In the The Two Towers, at the battle of Helm's Deep, no elves show up to save the day. They're too concerned with themselves. Thus, I was worried the elves would receive similar treatment in The Hobbit. Thankfully, there's a great scene at the beginning where the elven forces have a chance to step in and help the dwarves against Smaug but do nothing, setting the stage for the animosity between the two races. Making the dwarves bigots and the elves blameless would undermine a lot of what's to come. It remains to be seen if this thread will continue throughout the other two films, but I hope it will, as it's central to the story. In the LOTR, the dwarf Gimli was largely used to comedic effect, which worked well, however I was concerned (with thirteen dwarves) things would get out of hand. However, I think the filmmakers struck a great balance with the characters in this movie.

There are so many actors, and characters, it's hard to single out a few. Martin Freeman is great as Bilbo, in fact I couldn't imagine him being played by anyone else. Surely Ian Holm was too old to portray the younger character for the entire film. However, once Freeman was suggested for the part, based on his performance in the BBC's Sherlock, he seemed like the obvious choice. In fact, there couldn't be anyone better. However, due to conflicts with filming Sherlock, it looked like he wouldn't be able to accept. But Peter Jackson moved the whole filming schedule to accommodate him, and we're so lucky he did. Another point of concern was how they'd handle a movie with, effectively, fifteen main characters. But I think they did so admirably, focusing on a few dwarves up front, the charming yet wise Balin (Stott) and his gruff brother Dwalin (McTavish) stand out to me personally, as does Bofur (Nesbitt), who forms a friendship with Bilbo early on (and of course Thorin). Fíli (O'Gorman) and Kíli (Turner) are more important later in the story, so I trust we'll come to know them (as well as the others) better in the subsequent installments.

Is Kíli supposed to be a dwarf or Aragorn II?

My one complaint about the dwarves themselves is that it feels like the appearance of a few, such as Thorin or Kíli, have been tweaked for marketing purposes - they share none of the exaggerated features of the rest, and their beards are comparatively almost nonexistent. This is not to say that there can't be variety in dwarves, as with anything else, however given the way that everyone else is presented, it stands out (plus, you're telling me that the dwarven prince/king doesn't have the most robust beard of all? Come on!). And, of course, it's great to see McKellen and Lee return. Yes, they look a little worse for wear, ten years later down the road, as does Ian Holm, but I can deal with it to have them in the film. Further, as with LotR, I love the sense of scale in this movie. There's a great bit at the beginning where Bilbo's sitting down to eat this reasonably large fish. When Dwalin busts in (and subsequently eats the it) the fish is tiny compared to him. What's great is that they achieve many of these scale effects through practical means, such as the use of forced-perspective (optical illusions based on the relative position of the actors and size/alignment of the props) and doubles, rather than computers.

Admittedly, there were things that annoyed me the first time I saw this film, based on my own preconceptions, primarily from reading the book. However, this is why I say one should always see such a film a second time. For me this is true with any hyped-up film you feel vaguely disappointed with upon seeing initially. And, in fact, I really enjoyed the film on the second viewing. Yet a few issues remain, the primary one being that the film is slightly overlong. Honestly, I think without the prologue, things would have been just right. Aside from feeling like the inclusion of LOTR Bilbo/Frodo at the film's start was largely fanservice, a lot of redundancy was created in the process, leading to the beginning of the film felling very slow. The prologue covers a lot of information, however much of this is told to us a second time, when presented to Bilbo by the dwarves. Though it is nice to see all the places that are being talked about as part of the prologue, I personally feel like the conversation with Bilbo is much more effective at relating the same information. First, it works on the imagination: we hear about all these fantastic places and wonder what they're like, we want to see them, which invests us in the story. Second, we experience things from Bilbo/the dwarves point of view, which not only adds character but invests us in them. Having both present, in my opinion, is redundant, unnecessary, and why many feel the film is slow to get underway.

For some proof, the second time I saw the film, I saw it with my father, who arrived about half an hour after the film had begun: he didn't feel like he had missed anything. Unfortunately, he missed the classic arrival of the dwarves, which I filled him in on later, but didn't mourn the prologue one bit. In general, I felt like there was more exposition in this film than LOTR and it suffers accordingly. Leaving a little mystery (within reason of course, you don't want to confuse anyone) engages the audience. Too much exposition only bores them. For example, do we really need an Orc point of view occasionally? Do they really need subtitles/who cares what they're saying? Might it be more interesting (not to mention put us in the same head space as the dwarves) to let us speculate about that for a little bit longer?

There's a lot more I could say, for instance, one of the things I was initially concerned about was the new material they'd be adding but, thus far, I think it turned out great. The council scene in the second half is one of the best written parts in the film, and really sets the stage for the future. However, I've already said quite a lot, so I'll forgo telling you my opinions about Azog so I can focus on the HFR 3D for a little bit before I'm done. Normal film is displayed at a rate of 24 frames per second (FPS), while television is displayed at a rate of 30. Either way, when things move fast, a slight 'ghosting' effect is created, where objects will be slightly blurry/appear to be in two places at once. This is more pronounced in film, since there are less frames. If you freeze-frame a movie when a lot of movement is going on, you'll see what I'm talking about. When frame rates were standardized for sound back in the 1920s, 24 FPS was chosen for film as it was the very lowest they could go (so as to save on film) while still maintaining the illusion of motion. We've become accustomed to this, over the years, and the frame rate of film is one of the things that contributes to its 'look' versus television. However, with 3D, this 'ghosting' inherent with low frame rates disrupts the 3D effect and makes everything somewhat muddy. Next time you see a film in 3D, try closing one eye and you'll see the picture is much sharper. With HFR 3D, which doubles the normal frame rate to 48 FPS, everything is much clearer.

At first, since it's not what you're used to, your brain doesn't know how to react. At the beginning of the film, my brain treated the extra frames as if everything was sped up, however you do get used to it eventually - it took around 20 minutes/half an hour for me personally. It's especially obvious when there's lots of movement, particularly battle scenes and camerawork. Granted, it's a little weird at first but once you're acclimated to it, it's quite amazing. Rather than normal 3D, where everything looks vaguely fake, it literally looks like you're watching a play, rather than a movie. Some people have complained that, with this added reality, some of the film magic (makeup, effects, CGI) looks bad, however I for one thought everything looked great, be it the 3D characters or the environment. My one complaint was during one scene where it was raining, though the characters were wet, you could tell that none of the rain was landing on them, which seemed artificial. However, overall, I'd say it was a superior experience. As I said earlier, I don't often see films in 3D, however if HFR continues to be offered, I will seriously consider it. True, the filmmakers might have to wield some of their tricks more effectively but, as with any new technology, I expect they'll only get better with time. Better still, a friend of mine that always gets headaches at 3D movies found that the high frame rate solved the issue. Overall, this is a technology I'm now very excited about now, and I look forward to seeing what they do with it in the future. It takes a little getting used to, but having seen it once, I wouldn't want to see a 3D film any other way.

In the end, I really enjoyed this movie. It wasn't what I was expecting necessarily, and does feel sometimes like it's trying too hard to be Lord of the Rings rather than itself, but overall it's a good film. It's a little long and there's too much exposition at times, but there's a lot of charm to be found within, and a lot of humor. Plus, if you're a fan of 3D, HFR really takes things to another level. I give this film a 4.25/5.

6. For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943, 170m)

May 1937: The Spanish Civil War

Alas, I had to do a little reorganizing here as it occurred to me that I really should have included a film about the Spanish Civil War, but only after I had already watched The Flowers of War (2011). So I have reordered those posts just in case any person, vaguely mad as I am, ends up following in my footsteps and tries to tackle this list him/herself. Further, at the end, it's my intention to single-out the best films I watched over the course of the project and make, effectively, a 'highlights list' in case there are those who are interested in seeing some of these movies but don't want to commit to the (likely) full one-hundred.

Either way, today's film is For Whom the Bell Tolls (1943) based on the celebrated novel of the same name by Ernest Hemingway, inspired by his own experiences as a reporter during the Spanish Civil War. The film stars Gary Cooper, Ingrid Bergman, Akim Tamiroff, Arturo de Córdova, Vladimir Sokoloff, Mikhail Rasumny, and Katina Paxinou. Though the Spanish themselves stayed out of the Second World War, many of the same nations that would fight in that conflict used the Spanish Civil War to cut the teeth of their armies (Germany and Italy provided aid to Francisco Franco while the Soviet Union helped the opposing Republican forces). I was planning, at some point, to ask why all WWII movies were two hours long, but then this one was almost three so I figured I probably shouldn't ask too many questions.

The film follows Robert Jordan (Cooper) - no, not the best-selling fantasy author, though many speculate he may have derived his pseudonym from the book - an American serving with the Spanish Republican forces in their struggle against Franco's fascists. Jordan, we learn, is skilled with dynamite and demolitions and is tasked by Russian General Golz (Eric Feldary) to blow up a bridge used by the opposition. To this end, Jordan and Anselmo (Sokoloff), his elderly guide and friend, will be aided by a local band of guerrillas, hiding in the mountains in the vicinity of the bridge.

The small crew is lead by Pablo (Tamiroff), a cowardly stand-offish man who wants the dynamite for his own purposes, but peopled by diverse characters such as the Gypsy Rafael (Rasumny), who are eager to help. When Pablo's true intentions are revealed, the formidable Pilar (Paxinou), Pablo's woman, belittles him in front of the others. In return, Pablo suggests she lead the group instead, which she does, happily, to the applause of everyone else involved.

Here, Jordan also meets María (Bergman), a fellow refugee whom Pilar has taken under her wing to help with the cooking/general chores in the cave where the guerrillas are headquartered. At the start of the war, her father (the mayor of their village) and mother were murdered and she was imprisoned and raped. Amidst the grim and uncertain times, the two inevitably start a relationship, though Jordan grows increasingly concerned as her affection for him grows. He knows that she wants him to leave with her, yet he intends to see the war through to its end (for better or worse).

Meanwhile, Pablo vacillates between cowardice and a resolve to complete the mission, resulting in increasing sentiment among the men to have him killed before he betrays them. One night, when everyone is sequestered during a snowfall - to prevent footprints - Pilar tells the tale of the man Pablo used to be; how he lost his resolve after witnessing the mob behavior and wanton murder of his fellow Republicans. At this point, Pablo returns and is once again allowed to join the group. The next day, however, on the eve of the planned sabotage, he witnesses the death of a fellow company of guerrillas. Led by a man named El Sordo (Joseph Calleia), these men sacrifice themselves to allow Pilar's forces to escape. In a moment of weakness, Pablo destroys the only detonator for the explosives, jeopardizing the plan's success at the worst possible moment.

This film, at least given it's length, should be fairly epic yet, upon watching it, I couldn't tell you why it's so long. Don't get me wrong, I love old movies and am typically all about slower pacing - at least with a purpose. However, with this film, it didn't feel like it accomplished anything. The narrative simply seemed drawn out for no reason. For a time, the will-he/won't-he nature of Pablo was interesting, particularly when it was unclear how he would respond to Jordan's usurpation of his authority. Unfortunately, once it became clear that Pablo didn't have the balls to do much of anything, after his third or fourth time leaving, followed by concern on the part of the men, and subsequent return, it seemed like nothing more than a waste of time. Similarly, in addition to the Sisyphean trials of Pablo, a lot of time was spent discussing horses. The concern was, once the bridge was destroyed, the rebels needed to escape the valley, however they didn't have enough horses for everyone. The clear solution, at least to me, was to move the nonessential personnel (María for example) out of the valley the day before the attack. Problems such as this, that fly in the face of common sense, serve only to catapult the audience out of their suspension of disbelief and, thus, highlight further faults. When compared to other epics, be they contemporaries like Gone with the Wind (1939), and especially when stacked up against the heavies of two decades later, such as Bridge on the River Kwai (1957), Ben-Hur (1959), and of course Lawrence of Arabia (1962), that depict so much, it's a shame to see a film clock in at almost three-hours that could just have easily (and likely more effectively) been told in half/two-thirds as long.

Musically, the film harkens back to another era with it's classic score, though the mixing leaves something to be desired. There are times in the movie when the music serves one purpose - suspense, for example - and another piece of music, conveying an entirely opposing thought - say, humor - is spliced in awkwardly for a couple seconds, before returning to the original piece. Mind you this is not simply the juxtaposition of themes in a single composition, but two different songs crudely and distractingly cutting to and from one another.

Visually, the film is solid, though given it's scenic nature I can't help but feel like it would have been better in widescreen, had they waited another ten years. Obviously, I can't hold that against them, however. On the other hand, the technicolor is beautiful, bringing the film's earthy color pallet to life with soft, yet rich hues.

In general, I felt that the acting was adequate. I will admit up front that I haven't seen too many films with Gary Cooper or Ingrid Bergman in them but, as a point of comparison, felt that Bergman was good in Casablanca (1942) and Cooper was stellar in High Noon (1952). Perhaps it was the director's goal to employ understated performances, that somehow this would bring the film more realism/authenticity, but to to me everything simply felt flat. For a time at least, Tamiroff was compelling but, once his conflict with the rest of the characters had overstayed it's welcome, he similarly went from feeling like a threat to a distraction. Even a unique, somewhat quirky character like Pilar, whom I would normally love, was only okay in this case.

Overall, I thought the film was alright. The subject matter was somewhat interesting but the pacing was off and the film was overlong. If there was stand-out character (like Christoph Waltz in Inglorious Basterds (2009), seriously, I could watch that guy for the whole three hours - not that Basterds needed one of course, since it was taut and compelling all the way through), someone to keep the audience's interest, it would be a different story. Reportedly, Hemingway himself didn't care for this adaptation as he felt it diminished the political elements of his novel. Indeed, it's possible, with an additional storyline, the film might have felt less repetitive. In the end though, what promised to present us with the grim realities of war, wound up as nothing more than folks hiding in a cave talking about Pablo and his horses for eighty-seven percent of the time. I rate this film 2.5/5.

7. The Flowers of War (2011, 146m)

December 13, 1937 to January 1938: The Nanking Massacre

For the first time in this project, we're off to Asia with Jīnlíng Shísān Chāi (The Flowers of War), a film by the acclaimed Chinese filmmaker Zhang Yimou (Raise the Red Lantern (1991), Hero (2002), and House of Flying Daggers (2004)). The film focuses on a group of people that take shelter in a Nanking church when the Chinese capitol is invaded by the Japanese Army. The film features an ensemble cast, starring Christian Bale, Ni Ni, Zhang Xinyi, Tong Dawie, Atsuro Watabe, Cao Kefan and Huang Tianyuan.

John Miller (Bale) is an American mortician that has come to the city to tend to the recently deceased Father of the local Catholic church. When the Japanese attack, Miller flees to the church, helping two Chinese schoolgirls along the way, including Shu (Xinyi) who provides voice-over commentary for much of the film. Nearby, the remaining Chinese troops in the city, lead by the formidable, yet understated, Major Li (Dawei) - a talented sniper - make a final stand against the invaders in order to protect the remaining schoolgirls. The girls are saved but everyone else is killed, save for Li and one critically wounded young soldier.

Miller arrives at the church and is informed by George Chen (Tianyuan), a reserved young man left in charge after the Father's death, that the priest's body was tragically destroyed by a stray bomb and they have no more need of him. Miller demands to be paid for his trouble, but George insists they have no money to pay him. Meanwhile, the remaining schoolgirls arrive and the church is sealed against outsiders. George asks Miller to fix a broken-down truck parked in the courtyard so they can evacuate the city, but Miller refuses to do it for free. Major Li arrives shortly thereafter and takes a position outside the church with his rifle, a guardian angel of sorts.

Soon, a group of prostitutes appears, seeking refuge, but George turns them away, so their unofficial leader, Yu Mo (Ni Ni) simply leads the girls over the church's walls. George is helpless to stop them and the women take up residence in the church's basement. The prostitutes and the schoolgirls find themselves immediately at odds and are constantly fighting. Yu Mo also tries to persuade Miller to fix the truck, that he may take the prostitutes to safety instead, offering sex in return. He quickly becomes infatuated with her but doesn't want to commit himself to anything. Drunk, in an attempt to win over Yo Mo with humor, Miller dresses in the Father's vestments and attempts to engage in a little role-playing, but things get a little out of hand and Major Li is forced to intervene.

Suddenly a force of Japanese soldiers breach the gates and storms inside, intending to rape the virginal schoolgirls. Still in the Father's clothes, Miller comes to their aid, acting as the church's priest and putting his life on the line to save them. Undeterred, the soldiers persist and Major Li engages them with his rifle. After the battle, the local Japanese Colonel, Hasegawa (Watabe), pays a visit to the church, apologizing for the behavior of his men. He says he is a music lover and wants the girls to perform at a Japanese victory ceremony, stationing guards around the church for their safety. However, as time passes, Miller realizes the terrible truth: the Japanese are merely protecting the girls as 'party favors' for their celebration, and everyone must come together in the remaining time to try find a method of escape.

Wow. I was really impressed with this movie. The visuals are simply stunning and the events portrayed, though uncomfortable at times, are not widely studied in the West. Yimou's signature visual style is evident throughout, resulting in something quite beautiful and serene, a stark contrast to the brutal events depicted. Acting-wise, Ni Ni is great, as the beautiful yet mysterious Yu Mo, as are many others, such as Huang Tianyuan's charming-yet-infuriating performance as George. Further, Christian Bale is solid as the conflicted Miller which, by no means a standout, is good in the role and allows the other actors to shine. My personal favorite is Tong Dawei as Major Li, the consummate professional/undeniable bad ass. Honestly, I'd love to see a movie just about him.

Of course, a film such as this is bound to attract the usual complaints about the White Savior, and this movie is no different. Indeed the credits struck me as somewhat odd as well: Christian Bale was listed first, prominently, then the whole crew (director, writer, composer, cinematographer, etc), and finally the rest of the cast was all at the end. Indeed, though this film is largely historical fiction, there were whites such as John Rabe, a German, who actually helped get people to safety. However, what I would say is this: this film was made by a prominent Chinese director, for a Chinese market. At no point during the production of this film, was there some up-his-ass American jamming his manifest-destiny crap into this movie. In fact, during an interview, Yimou said it was a conscious choice on his part and getting Bale's character into the movie/past the censors was one of his biggest accomplishments: "this kind of character, a foreigner, a drifter, a thug almost, becomes a hero and saves the lives of Chinese people. That has never ever happened in Chinese filmmaking, and I think it will never happen again in the future." Similarly, Yimou wanted to present a more sympathetic/"layered" portrayal of the Japanese, than that usually seen in Chinese film, particularly with Colonel Hasegawa, who struggles internally with the orders of his superiors.

A lot of Western reviews at the time of the film's release release were, I feel, unduly harsh on these counts alone. There's a tendency I've seen a lot lately for people to get indignant on the behalf of others who aren't offended in the slightest (such as Roger Ebert's review of this film, where he asked why is couldn't have been a Chinese mortician instead of an American one) and it drives me crazy. Honestly, I think that telling people from another country (or of another race), based on our own sensibilities, what should be offensive to them is far worse. Regardless of who helped who historically, though, this film is largely about the Chinese characters and that's what's really at the heart of this story. The film is mixed language, 40% English/60% Chinese (subtitled).

Overall, seeing great films such as this, that I've never seen before, is one of the main reasons I'm doing this project. This movie combines good acting with a compelling, heart-wrenching subject I know very little about, and presents it all through dazzling visuals. Though the events portrayed are grim and tragic, the film itself is brilliant and masterfully crafted. It's also available on Netflix Instant Watch so you should definitely check it out! I rate this film a 4/5.

5. The Hindenburg (1975, 125m)

The Week of May 6, 1937: The Hindenburg Disaster

Today is already December 7. Wow, this thing has really grown; I originally was planning to watch a film about the attack on Pearl Harbor today (most likely Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970)) but now, even by most conservative estimates, there are around twenty films before it. Twenty films... I remember when this whole project was supposed to be twenty films... Either way, upward and onward!

Speaking of which, today's film is The Hindenburg (1975), starring George C. Scott and a variety of others. Made in the finest '70s disaster movie tradition (beginning with The Poseidon Adventure (1972) then followed by Earthquake (1974) and The Towering Inferno (1974)), the film has a large ensemble cast: Anne Bancroft, William Atherton, Burgess Meredith, Charles Durning, Robert Clary, Rene Auberjonois, and Peter Donat among others. Only, this time, one of them is a passenger trying to blow up the Hidenburg and it's up to Colonel Franz Ritter (Scott) to find out who - and stop them - before it's too late! The film's music and visuals are consistent with the time period/type of movie: the grand score makes us long for another age while Wise's visual team provides their signature opulence. The acting is alright, though nothing to write home about - or indeed in a review, but such is the nature of most ensemble pieces.

The film opens with a brief history of airships, done in the style of newsreel footage. There's a lot of history - humor too - and the result is quite charming, not to mention effective. I'll quickly point out that I love airships and that putting them in a film will pretty much guarantee that I'll see it at some point (I'm still trying to justify shoehorning Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1980) into this list, we'll see, 1938's already got some weird stuff!).

From there, the film bursts into color with a airship soaring majestically through the clouds. After the credits, we see a woman writing a letter, warning of a plot to destroy the Hindenburg. In response, Joseph Goebbels sends Ritter along on board to prevent sabotage. From there, Ritter and SS Officer Martin Vogel (Roy Thinnes), carefully review each passenger and consider if they have a reason to destroy the ship. Though made off-limits immediately upon departure, various passengers inevitably try and sneak back to the crew area/infrastructure - the most vulnerable part of the ship. Everyone's acting suspicious so everyone's a suspect.

Eventually, Ritter does discover the saboteur however, when this person makes it clear that their intention is to destroy the ship as a statement against the Nazis - while sparing the lives of everyone on board - Ritter must decide what what he wants do. The bomb may already be set. If he apprehends the saboteur now, he might never find it. Plus, Ritter's son died during his time in the HJ, so he has his own grudge against the Nazis. In the end, Ritter is faced with a difficult choice: to stop this person or help them.

Regardless of Ritter's choice, though, as we all know the ship explodes. This is handled in an interesting way in the film: everything switches to black and white so it can be cross-cut with the historical footage of the Hindenburg disaster. This sequence is fast and intense, though it frustratingly freezes on occasion for emphasis. Further, it gives the audience a new appreciation for what happened that day by giving faces (albeit mostly fictional ones) to the souls aboard. More than anything, though, I was shocked at how many people survived the catastrophe. And, obviously, Herbert Morrison's infamous radio broadcast of the event is incorporated as well. The film ends there, after cataloging the dead/survivors.

Safety, in regard to the hydrogen, plays a very prominent role in the film. I must admit I was a little surprised to what degree they went to keep everyone safe: thorough searches of the passengers, covering the steel tip of a cane to prevent against accidental sparks, etc. It makes sense, of course, but you never think about it. Though the ship did allow smoking on board, there was only one lighter (an electric one) that was centrally located and all the passengers had to share. In fact, though by this period there had been several airship accidents worldwide, until now the Germans maintained a perfect operating record, due to the diligence of their captains and crew.

When one when thinks about the Hindenburg, they can't help but look it it through the eyes of today - "Well of course it was going to explode, they should have known better!" And indeed, there's a little of that here, from a couple Americans, in addition to some ominous music/foreshadowing. However we must recall that they were doing the best they could with what was available to them. From my point of view, it's actually more amazing that there were as few problems back then as there were. Certainly today most people don't care a thing for safety, imagine them in the 1930s - "What do you mean I can't bring my flamethrower on board?? I just bought this! I want to speak to your supervisor!"

The legendary Robert Wise (The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), West Side Story (1961), The Sound of Music (1965), The Andromeda Strain (1971) and Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1971), among others - this is the same dude who edited Citizen Kane (1941)!) directs this with his characteristic grandeur, not to mention exactitude. The audience is left with no doubt what they're seeing is a lovingly crafted recreation of the legendary airship. Wise goes far to include real history in the film (even if the sabotage plot is somewhat dubious factually) portraying many historical people, for example, Dr. Hugo Eckener, Count Zeppelin's protege who took over the company after his death. Further, there's an eye for detail, for example the animosity between Goebbels and Eckener: during its second test flight, after the airship was completed, the Mayor of Munich asked Eckener what the ship's name would be over the radio. 'The Hindenburg' he replied, named for Germany's recently deceased president (the man who preceded Hitler). When he found out, Goebbels was furious, believing it should have been the Adolf Hitler. After that, Goebbels wouldn't speak to the man and refused to call the airship by its name, using only its designation, LZ 129 thereafter. Though the incident itself is not portrayed in this film, Goebbels behavior stays true to history.

Another such situation alluded to was the desire on the part of Eckener to switch the airship's lifting gas from hydrogen to helium. Helium, while more expensive and less effective, was of course far safer, however almost all of the gas was owned by the United States and they didn't want to share. In fact, for a while at least, Germany wasn't allowed to make any airships of this size at all - a provision of the Treaty of Versailles. It was finally through a gift, of the USS Los Angeles, that Germany was allowed to proceed, however they were still without the helium. After the Hindenburg disaster, FDR promised Eckener access to the gas however, with the annexation of Austria in 1938, the offer was rescinded.

A few incidents depicted in this films were appropriated from other airships, like the rip and subsequent mid-air repair of one of the ship's fins high above the icy Atlantic, which actually happened to the Graf Zeppelin during its first flight in 1928. Granted, a few details are wrong here and there - certain war medals and companies that didn't fit the timeline - but almost all of the airship stuff is right on. It's impressive that Wise and co. got their history right, but more so that they found a way to work it into the film in a manner that doesn't make it seem like a history lesson.

Overall, I'd have to say this is a pretty solid movie. Yes, it can be a little cheesy at times, yes sometimes the history is a little off. However, you know the type of movie you're in for when you sit down to watch it - and if you like this kind of film, it's a good one. The whole 'find the saboteur' aspect keeps the tension on, at the same time differentiating this movie from its fellows, while the real history provides a ticking clock that Scott must race against. I rate this film a 3.5/5.

Star Trek Into Darkness Teaser Impressions

Not Again! Gotta Finish. Boldly Going Where Everyone Has Gone Before?

Alright, so the teaser for the upcoming Star Trek into Darkness (2013) has appeared today. Check it out here and we'll talk. I've linked to the Japanese version as it contains around 15 seconds of extra footage. I would have linked to the official trailer on Apple, but they won't let you link directly to files, sorry about the ad.  Back? good. In general, I admit it's looking pretty cool and I'll definitely be there on opening day as Star Trek is one of my favorite things. In fact, if they hadn't decided Star Trek was a universally appealing summer-type franchise now, the movie would likely already be out (Trek films were historically a November affair until the studio execs apparently liked Abrams' new take on the series so much they delayed it to the summer of 2009). It also, once again, seems like we're back on the road to Khan territory, which by no means is the end of the world, I just feel like something could have been done in a similar vein (Gary Mitchell?) but the new subject might have been more interesting. However, what I really wanted to talk about is this, my fanboy plea for all those who make movies for fanboys: can we get a new type of plot please? Alright, hear me out:

Yes, The Dark Knight (2008) was amazing, due, in no small part, to Heath Ledgers' brilliant performance. It also made a ton of money and I get that. The Joker was a great character and was the epitome of the new grim and gritty/reboot world that most of these films now inhabit. Then we had The Dark Knight Rises (2012) which, while certainly alright, tweaked the whole 'mad man of chaos' motif into more of an anarchist/revenge one. I know some people really enjoyed it but it really didn't do anything for me personally. Bane (Tom Hardy) was certainly an amusing antagonist though no Heath Leger. But that's fine - honestly Bane was probably my favorite part of that movie. If anything, I felt like Batman himself just wasn't as interesting as the previous films. However that's neither here nor there, something to be addressed in its own review. Once again, though, that's fine, especially as it's Nolan's followup to his own movie. He can do whatever he wants. Great.

But then we had Skyfall (2012), the newest Bond film, which feels like more of the same. Yes, it was a good movie, but I'm starting to get a little tired of the same plot now. The whole time my first thought was 'wow, this is basically like a James Bond version of one of Christopher Nolan's Batman movies'. Again, I still felt it was a good movie, it looked amazing and had some great action set-pieces, but it didn't enthrall me  the way it seemed to do with others.

Further, we now have the trailer for Shane Black's Iron Man 3 (2013) which presents the Mandarin (Sir Ben Kingsley) in a very similar, Bane-esque society challenging/revenge light. Their voices even sound vaguely similar. Basically, the trailer consists of the Mandarin warning us not to be too comfortable with society and the he's going to break Batman er, Tony Stark. And now, at least from the poster/trailer, the next Star Trek film seems to be going down the very same path. Note, the very same narration combined with a personal/societal vendetta and the very same montage of destruction. This is not to imply that I don't think either film will be good. Far from it. I'm just concerned that every film of this genre that appeared over the last couple years (with the exception of Marvel's The Avengers (2012)) has fallen into this mold. We've been here before guys, show us something new.

4. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981, 115m)

1936: Nazi Interest in the Occult

Alright, I couldn't help myself. Raiders is my favorite adventure movie of all time. Plus, I figured if I could watch a fake movie about a real thing, why couldn't I watch a real movie about a fake thing? Exactly.

Raiders of the Lost Ark - from the creators of JAWS and STAR WARS!!! - is the story of the titular character (Harrison Ford), an archeologist/adventurer, who undertakes a dangerous mission for US Army Intelligence: find the legendary Ark of the Covenant before the Nazis do! Leading the opposition is rival archeologist René Belloq (Paul Freeman) and his Nazi colleagues, headed by the skeptical Colonel Dietrich (Wolf Kahler) and the fearsome Gestapo Major Toht (Ronald Lacey). Along the way, he teams up with an old flame, Marion Ravenwood (Karen Allen) and digger extraordinaire Sallah (John Rhys-Davies). Denholm Elliot is also around.

Now that that's out of the way, I want to say I love the writing in this film, particularly the character introductions: Indy, who's prepared for betrayal at any moment; Belloq, screwing Indy over immediately; Marcus, lurking at the side of Indy's classroom; Marion, embattled in a fierce drinking contest; Sallah, surrounded by his family and always ready to help a friend; even Thot, who goes right for the fire-poker. Further, the dialogue is spot on. There's a great scene early on in the film where US Army Intelligence comes to see Indy and the pacing is just brilliant. There are two men there from the Army and the first pretty much refuses to let the second talk the whole conversation. Any time he says anything, he's interrupted. Indy is the same way with Marcus - not in a dickish way, but in a realistic one. If those two want to talk, they have to keep up. Instead, they must simply get in a word where they can.

And who doesn't get goosebumps when we find out that the Nazis are digging in the wrong place! Genius.

Sound is another area that makes this movie special. Besides John Williams' classic score (likely his best in my opinion, and that's saying something), the sound design is Ben Burtt at his finest. During the fight in Marion's bar, I think it was an inspired choice to make the guns sounds distinguishable from one another; the bad guy's guns have slightly higher-pitched reports while Indy's is deep and meaty. This makes it clear what's going on even when it's not on screen.

The casting is masterfully done as well. We've all heard the story by now of how Tom Selleck was initially offered the role Indiana Jones but had to turn it down due to a conflict with Magnum, P.I. - Ford was, in fact, Spielberg's original choice for the role, but Lucas resisted because he'd already cast him in so many of his movies. However, after Selleck proved unavailable, the other producers interceded on Ford's behalf based on the strength of his acting in The Empire Strikes Back (1980). They obviously made the right choice (Empire is his second best performance, in my opinion, with Raiders as the first). Similarly, Belloq is a great character - the best villains are the ones that don't know they're villains, they feel completely justified in whatever it is that they're doing. That's one of the traits Gul Dukat (Marc Alaimo), one of my favorite villains of all time, has in spades and it's one of the myriad of elements that makes Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (1993-1999) such an exceptional show (a show that, in fact, has many analogues to World War II in its own right). But more on that some other time.

Moreover, this film has the de facto greatest action sequence of all time (the second being the hospital sequence at the end of John Woo's Hard Boiled (1992)): the fight with the German mechanic at the flying wing and the ensuing truck chase. I once read that the filmmakers approached the action sequences as they would any other sequence of the film, by creating a series of problems that need to be overcome. Many action movies make the mistake of filling up on guns and explosions. Raiders, on the other hand, is so effective because of the cerebral nature of the fights: this big guy is coming after me, I can hit him but it makes no difference, I need to switch to the gun but I can't get to it, now things are even more desperate since I have to get Marion out of the plane before it explodes. See what I mean? This increases our emotional investiture in not only what's going on but the characters involved. This gives the sequence it's own unique pacing and even allows for moments of humor. Look at the chase through the market place or the fight at Marion's bar for two other prime examples. Most modern movies will make a fight raw (look how bloody it gets when you bludgeon a person for three minutes) or look cool in some stylized manner (wire-fighting and whatnot) but it's not the same. Don't get me wrong, these other styles have their uses, I just feel like this type of action sequence is one of the things that elevates the Indiana Jones films and, unfortunately, is becoming a lost art. And what set-pieces, the flying wing and the truck - they really use every inch of them; over, under, even the sides!

I also want to praise the new blu-ray transfers. The picture and sound is better than ever. I recall a time (probably on VHS), before I used component video cables, where you couldn't tell the letters were supposed to be hollow during the opening credits. There are a few instances near the beginning where the focus is a little soft for a second or two, but it's difficult to tell if this is an issue with the transfer or merely the way the film has always been. I've seen Raiders in the theatre twice in the past couple years. The first was an old film print where I didn't notice anything, however there were the scratches and whatnot inherent with the passage of time, so it's possible that it simply didn't stand out as much. The second was during a marathon of all four films right before the blu-rays came out and I did notice it then, however what they showed that day was almost certainly from the same transfer so it's impossible to say. Maybe I should've checked out the IMAX version?

Historically, Nazi interest in the occult was was definitely a real thing (look no further than what Himmler was up to at Wewelsburg castle), though one wonders if they were serious about it or merely hoping to use it for symbolic purposes. Either way, I'm positive that the Nazis would have jumped at the opportunity to get ahold of any prominent myth-steeped treasure such as the Ark of the Covenant, Spear of Destiny, or indeed the Holy Grail (just wait, we'll get there eventually). The lure of these objects and the mysteries surrounding them is very powerful and the portrayal of the Nazis (especially the SS) in pursuit of their secrets is a popular one that persists through numerous media today.

Overall, this is a phenomenal movie and one of the all time greats (if not the best). I think, too, that it's interesting to watch Raiders in its proper historical context. Otherwise it's easy to forget that this is still the prewar period, that no one is at war with anyone yet (well, at least if you're, say, eight years-old, and watching it for the first time, and things like years mean nothing to you). And it's nice to see what degree the rest of the world will (or won't) tolerate a Nazi presence. This is simply Spielberg and Ford (and Williams, and Kasdan, and Allen, and Rhys-Davies, and Freeman, and Burtt, and Action/Adventure, etc) at their best. Boom: 6/5.