The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (2012) – Review

Review: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a magnificent cinematic return to Middle-Earth, but probably only for fans of the original Lord of the Rings Trilogy. The film is the first part of The Hobbit Trilogy. It finds Bilbo Baggins content to live an average life in his hometown of Hobbiton, that is until Gandalf and thirteen dwarves entice him to join them on an adventure to regain their home – a kingdom within the Lonely Mountain. The trouble is, the vicious dragon Smaug has occupied the kingdom. Part one focuses on Bilbo joining the dwarves and the beginning of the quest.

Writer-director Peter Jackson (along with the three studios involved in the film’s production) decided that The Hobbit (which is shorter than any of the Lord of the Rings books) should be split into three films. Aside from the clear motivation to extract as much money out of the franchise as possible, Jackson has stated that in addition to what is in the book he is also including a lot of detail and character backstory from other Tolkin writings. Thus, according to Jackson, this is why the film needs to be split into three film, because the total material is so dense. For fans of the Middle-Earth sagas this is great, as they get to spend more time in the world. However, this also results in the film feeling long in parts and the main narrative seems to be continually interrupted by tangents that go on too long as well.

An Unexpected Journey is mostly made up of scenes in which Bilbo and the dwarves experience growing pains as they begin their adventure. Bilbo gets into trouble. The dwarves try to help him but are overmatched and get themselves into trouble, and then Gandalf saves the day. This seems to repeat itself a couple times. And, since this is basically a road trip movie with the company visiting fantastic places and coming upon strange characters, Jackson has to seemingly over extent the film’s action scenes. They feel too long really. This is because it is too early in the narrative for their to be grave stakes for the characters and the audience, thus the action scenes do not yet engage the audience on an emotional level (barring the final one which does have some character drama in it). The audience assumes the characters are safe from real danger as it is too early in the story for anyone to die, and thus only interests the audience on a purely spectacle level, but that wears off quickly without deeper resonating impact. These scenes probably needed to be more economical, but blockbusters seemingly need to be action films first these days so there is lots of manufactured unneeded action.

The other scenes that feel a bit long, but could pay-off later in the trilogy (and probably will), are the sequences in which the camera leaves Bilbo and the main narrative to focus on other story elements (like the scene featuring Radagast in the forest or Gandalf meeting with the council of Middle-Earth’s guardians). The problem with these scenes is that the audience is trying to follow Bilbo’s narrative journey, yet they keep getting sidetracked by these other long scenes (that payoff in later films) that seemingly have nothing to do with the main narrative or Bilbo. Only fans of the Lord of the Rings will care or appreciate these scenes (all this stuff could have been saved for extended editions of the films). Basically, large portions of this film are there only to reference the Lord of the Rings Trilogy adding little to the story of The Hobbit, and this hurts the overall narrative flow and pacing of the film.

This is also true of the prologue, which is also overly long. Much like The Fellowship of the Ring, An Unexpected Journey needs to set up the story by first divulging a ton of back story, but Jackson again includes unneeded references to the Lord of the Rings (like Frodo’s cameo) that drag it out too long (again, this would have been better served for an extended edition).

The Hobbit as a book is geared much more towards children. It has a much simpler story, but Jackson wants to present it on the same epic level as the Lord of the Rings. The problem is, the story is not as big. The dwarves recapturing their home from the dragon Smaug is not nearly as important to the realm as destroying the one ring and thereby saving the world from evil and darkness. Thus, Jackson has to prop up the story a bit (which again is why the action feels artificially big and overly long).

Jackson, though, does a lot right as well – particularly with the characters and the actors’ performances, which are all great. Most of the film plays as a welcome return to Middle-Earth, as the audience settles easily back in for another adventure in the cinematic world they love.

The audience already knows a few of the characters in the film, but Jackson has to both reintroduce these characters as well as present a lot of new characters. The Hobbit has essentially three prominent characters – Bilbo, Gandalf, and Thorin (the grandson of the King of the kingdom that Smaug took and he is the leader of the dwarves on the adventure). Jackson does a brilliant job with these characters. The audience by the end of An Unexpected Journey is fully invested in the story and in these characters, primarily due to a few great dramatic character moments. Jackson also gives mini character arcs (which resolve by the end of the film) to Bilbo and Thorin, which draw the audience in and make them care about them.

In addition to the characters, Jackson also does a fantastic job creating very dynamic scenes (especially the scene between Gollum and Bilbo). These compelling scenes help keep the audience engaged in the film, even with the narrative not being as tight as it could have been. Really, the best moments in this film are those between the characters and not the action set pieces. Jackson is able to present the material in a way that is fun and entertaining, but also dramatically compelling.

All the issues aside, An Unexpected Journey is still a very good film, especially for fans of the series. It is beautifully shot, wonderfully scored and Jackson’s direction is top notch. It is great to be back in Middle-Earth.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Peter Jackson is really the best filmmaker to take on another adventure to Middle-Earth. It is clear from An Unexpected Journey that he really loves the material, which is why The Hobbit being stretched into three films does not feel like a purely financial decision. I am very much looking forward to the next two films in the series.

Howard Shore’s score for the film is tonally perfect, as it again captures the epic fantasy feel and action/adventure aspects of the drama. Shore incorporates many of the themes he wrote for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy but also has a number of new pieces that ultimately give An Unexpected Journey its own feel. Andrew Lesnie’s cinematography is beautiful and rich with color, as he takes fully advantage of New Zealand’s landscapes. Dan Hennah’s production design is also wonderful. Everything looks and feels just as it should.

 The cast is very good across the board. All thirteen dwarves are a lot of fun, and are given their moments. The standout performances among them (in smaller roles) come from Graham McTavish, Ken Scott, and James Nesbitt. Andy Serkis is brilliant (again) as Gollum. He pretty much steals the film (even though he is in only one scene). He is able to be pitiful evoking sympathy and at the same time a complete villain. It is wonderful work. Richard Armitage gives a breakthrough performance (as least for American audiences) as Thorin. He plays him with so much pride and honor shielding a warrior that is emotionally broken with grief for his family and for how far his people have fallen. Ian McKellen is fantastic (also again) as Gandalf. He is both gentle and loving, while also terrifically powerful and seemingly almost petty in his manipulations. Martin Freeman brings a great comedic reluctance but also a warmth and true bravery to Bilbo. Undoubtedly, the film’s performances will be overlooked, which is too bad as it features some excellent work.

Summary & score: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is a film made for the fans with a particular love of the material by the filmmakers, and as a fan myself I very much enjoyed it (despite its shortcomings as a singular piece). 8/10

Movie of the Week – Eden Lake

Movie of the week: Eden Lake (2008).

Jenny and Steve leave the city for a romantic weekend away, camping next to a water-filled quarry. Enjoying their romantic break, the young couple comes across a group of local youths who begin to stir up trouble, escalating to unimaginable consequences.

Eden Lake is British writer-director James Watkins’s first feature film, and he has since gone on to direct the British ghost thriller The Woman in Black. Watkins takes the classic horror formula (typically found in Cabin in the Woods type movies) and removes all the supernatural and crazy killer elements, rather his film is about normal people who cross lines they can never come back from, which makes it all the more compelling and effecting.

Watkins worked with a great group on the film. Composer David Julyan (known for is great scores in The Prestige and The Cabin in the Woods) gives the film an extra emotional edge with his score. Along with Watkins, cinematographer Christopher Ross and production designer Simon Bowles give the film a very gritty and visceral look and feel.

As scary and thrilling as the action is, this type of film lives or dies with its characters and performances. Kelly Reilly is brilliant in the lead. She brings so much energy and fearlessness to it – the audience feels everything. Michael Fassbender and Jack O’Connell are also good in support.

Eden Lake has the appearance of a throwaway schlocky horror film, a dime a dozen. But, it is one of the best horror-thrillers in recent memory, with fantastic performances and gripping drama. It is a must-see for genre fans.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD and Streaming

TV Series of the Month – The Office (U.K.)

This month’s TV series: The Office (2001-2003).

A documentary crew follows around David Brent, the manager of British paper company Wenham Hogg’s Slough branch, and other employees as they go about their daily routines at work.

The show ran for two seasons and a finale special. The Office was written and directed by Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. It is their first series. They went on to create Extras, Life’s Too Short, The Ricky Gervais Show, An Idiot Abroad, and the feature film Cemetery Junction (all of which are good – they also executively produce the U.S. version of The Office).

The cast is fantastic as well, featuring Gervais, Martin Freeman, Mackenzie Crook, and Lucy Davis in the lead roles. They are a very funny group that plays off each other well.

The series revolutionized sitcom comedy, changing the style of jokes that would become prevalent in both Britain and America over the next decade – specifically, awkward humor – giving birth to shows like The Office (U.S. version), Parks and Recreation (two that have the same mockumentary style), and others. The series won multiple Golden Globes and BAFTAs during its run and is thought of as not only one of the greatest British comedies of all-time but also as one of the best TV shows as well. It is a must-see for awkward comedy fans.

Trailer: Here

Available on: DVD and Streaming

Life of Pi (2012) in 3D – Review

Review: Life of Pi is a phenomenally beautiful and fulfilling cinematic experience. The film is about Pi, a young Indian man and the son of a zookeeper. Pi’s family decides to uproot from India and move to Canada, and in the process they plan to sell all the animals in their zoo. They embark for North America with their animals aboard a Japanese freighter. However, shortly into the journey, the ship encounters a massive storm and begins to take on a catastrophic amount of water, sinking to the bottom of the ocean. Miraculously, Pi survives this disaster, but finds himself cast away stranded on a lifeboat with the zoo’s ferocious Bengal tiger. As they both struggle to survive, they form an unlikely bond.

Life of Pi is shot in 3D – a medium that is nothing more than gimmick allowing studios and theatres to charge more for tickets adding little to  (if not completely detracting from) the movie-going experience. However, with this film, the use of 3D is seamless, un-abrasive and even beautiful. It is one of the few films (Avatar being maybe the only other movie in which this is the case) that 3D adds something and is well worth paying extra for. Director Ang Lee is able to fully integrate the technology into his aesthetic style for the film, taking advantage of what 3D offers when utilized correctly (and not merely as a lazy, poorly executed way to make money).

The film has the feel of a grand epic story (similar to The Curious Case of Benjamin Button). Lee structures the narrative to be more about the character of Pi than just his adventure, going into how he got his name, his faith and his first love – all of which happens before he ever gets on the ship. This gives the film a very long first act, but it contributes so much to the character and Lee’s presents it all with a magical elegance, as if the audience is about to be treated to something special. Thus, the build-up only makes it better. It also gives the film a needed mythical quality (like a tall-tale), allowing the audience to accept the grand scale and extraordinary events (again, much like The Curious Case of Benjamin Button).

Lee makes a potentially risky narrative choice with the way the narrative is structured. The film begins with Pi as an adult telling his story to a writer (and then cutting back to him throughout the story). By showing Pi as an adult, Lee has informed the audience right off that Pi survives his great adventure, and thereby seemingly lessens the tension and suspense, as the audience knows he is going to be fine in the end. However, having adult Pi as the storyteller adds an extra layer of emotion, both nostalgic and in his ability to reflect on what he lost. This gives the audience a much deeper connection to Pi.

The film is also about so much more than just the action, thus the perceived loss of tension and drama from Pi’s struggle to survive (as the audiences already knows that he does) is not really that important. Plus, Lee’s staging is completely on point for the shipwreck scenes and all of Pi’s intense moments on the lifeboat. These scenes are exciting, scary, and utterly engaging. Thus, knowing Pi survives does not really factor into the emotional reaction to what the audiences experiences during Pi’s adventure. It is a thrilling and visceral adventure for the audience.

As set up in the first act with the stories about how Pi came to be a Hindu, a Christian, and a Muslim, Pi’s adventure is primarily a story about faith, surrender and acceptance – a spiritual journey. Lee presents the scenes of Pi isolated on the lifeboat with the Bengal tiger (Richard Parker) with almost an angelic splendor, and also completely perilous. The imagery is wondrous and exquisite. Films featuring an isolated character often delve into man’s relationship with god, and this is no different. Pi is perpetually on the brink of death, and yet fortuitous events prop him up and keep him going. His relationship with Richard Parker can also be viewed in a spiritual way. The tiger is a wild animal, seemingly void of feeling and a soul surviving purely on its instincts. He is an unimaginably frightening and dangerous to behold. And yet, Pi is able to form a bond with him, a bond that enables him to survive. Without Richard Parker Pi would have not have had the strength and will to survive (and without Pi, Richard Parker would not survive either).

Life of Pi is also an effects film in that it relies considerably on special effects. But, unlike many effects-heavy films, the plot does not serve the special effects they serve the narrative. Much like with Lee’s handling of 3D, his use of special effects is only to better tell the story (they are not there just to be there). The emotional impact that the film has on its audience does not stem from the visual effects, as impressive and seamless as they are (and they are phenomenally impressive – especially the animals). It is the character development and touching performances that resonate with the audience, and make this film something special.

Grand epics are increasingly common in Hollywood filmmaking, but few are as astonishingly beautiful and emotionally engrossing as Life of Pi. It is the masterwork of a great filmmaker.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Ang Lee has made almost every type of film (to varying degrees of success). Life of Pi is chiefly a brilliant spiritual character journey, with the action and visuals supporting the narrative. (While I do like Sense and Sensibility, The Ice Storm, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and Brokeback Mountain) it is his best film, and one that showcases his maturity and skill as a director.

Mychael Danna’s score has an Indian flavor to much of it (as one might expect), but it also sets the mood for this grand epic with moving pieces that seem to build up the sheer awe of the visuals, while still supporting the emotional tone dictated by the characters and narrative (here is the score in full). Claudio Miranda’s cinematography is magnificently striking and beautifully arresting. While the characters are the principal component of the narrative, the visuals play a large role in the overall experience as well. Miranda captures the audiences’ imagination with his dream-like photography, playing off the film’s grand scale and wondrous thematic elements. David Gropman’s production design is fantastic as well, flush with lavish colors. The look and mood of the ocean and sky feel almost like an additional character, as they contribute beauty, wonder and tension to the narrative.

The cast is mostly made up of actors with small roles in the film. Rafe Spall, Tabu, and Adil Hussain are all very good among these small roles. Irrfan Khan plays the adult version of Pi, telling the story to the writer. He is wonderful, especially in his final scenes in which his performance seems to give the film an additional emotional level. Suraj Sharma makes his film debut as Pi. He is great in the role, portraying the strength, innocence, and heart of Pi.

Summary & score: Life of Pi has all the best things about cinema – a great story, stunning visuals, and compelling characters. It is a cinema experience that all epics should endeavor to be. 9/10

Silver Linings Playbook (2012) – Review

Review: Silver Linings Playbook is a great character piece that feels more like a documentary than a fiction feature. The film is about Pat, a man struggling with being bipolar, who is released back into the custody of his parents (following a stay in a mental facility for a violent episode). Pat is trying to find his center so that he can resume his relationship with his estranged wife Nikki (who has a restraining order against him). To get in contact with Nikki, he enlists the help of Tiffany, the sister of a friend of Nikki’s, who is also struggling with mental disease. For her help, Pat agrees to help her with a dance competition. Their bond becomes a meaningful part in Pat rehabilitation.

Writer-director David O. Russell directs the film to have a very realistic feel (much like his last The Fighter). To accomplish this, he uses a hand-held camera and improvised dialog, giving the conversations a more natural progression (so they do not feel stylized for film). The performances are also very naturalistic, with each emotion feeling organic and authentic. This in turn pulls the audience in, as they can relate to the characters because they just feel like normal people. And really, this is the success of the film – its characters and the extent that they resonate with the audience.

The hand-held camera work is very aggressive. The camera often goes out of its way to emphasize details in a given scene. The camera also seems to invade the personal space of the actors at times, giving the film a very intimate but also an intimidating feel (depending on what the scene calls for). Russell does not what his characters and particularly the audience to escape any confrontation. His camera is right there in the thick of things, which gives many of the scenes an uncomfortable energy (which is fantastic).

The audience should feel a little uncomfortable watching the drama unfold, as Russell’s narrative digs into a very personal topic for him – mental disease (specifically bipolar disorder). He is not interested in playing it safe with his narrative, he wants to give a realistic account of people struggling with this disorder and also to show that they are no different than the rest of us – they have goals and dreams, good days and bad days.

To further draw the audience in, the narrative is also set up like a romantic comedy, which informs the expectations of the audience. They root for Pat and Tiffany as a couple. The undertones are there telling them that they should like these characters and want them to be together in the end. Russell also recognizes that the drama of the film is fairly intense and uncomfortable, thus there needs to be both a romantic plot and comedy (this is surprisingly funny at times) to give the audience lighter moments allowing them to breath (otherwise it might be too much). It is an interesting twist on the romantic comedy formula, blending it with a character drama (one that seems primed to pay dividends for its actors come awards season – a feel good romance that also works as a biting character drama).

However, as good a character piece as Silver Linings Playbook is, the narrative is not quite tight enough, leaving it feeling a bit slow at times. It is both a romance and a drama (separately and together). Each story needs time to develop, which puts the other on the back-burner (so to speak). Thus, the audience is being torn between the budding romance between Tiffany and Pat (which is really the secondary story) and Pat finding a way to cope and be okay in the world (which mostly seems to focus on Pat’s relationship with his father, who gets under his skin). Eventually, these two stories align and the film’s pacing seems to work a lot better. Plus, the conclusion is fantastic.

Silver Linings Playbook is a wonderful film that has some of 2012’s best and most developed characters (and performances). Its realism draws its viewer in, and its unflinching look at mental disease without being clinical or derogatory is refreshing.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: David O. Russell has now made six feature films. With The Fighter and now Silver Linings Playbook, he has very much established himself as an actor’s director, as he is garnering brilliant work from his casts. His aesthetic style has also evolved to be this hyper-realism that give his work an authentic quality (that is mostly lacking in Hollywood features), which again attracts great actors. Great actors want to work with great directors, and right now Russell is one of the best.

Danny Elfman’s score for the film is almost unnoticeable, as much of it plays without music or with a found soundtrack. However, when Efman’s work is needed, he delivers a fun bit of music (that plays seemingly lighter than the tone of the film, but still works) and also some dramatic tones (to accentuate moments). Masanobu Takayanagi’s cinematography fits with Russell’s desire to have the film feel realistic. The lighting seem mostly natural and un-stylized, though the camera work (as touched on above) definitely contributes more actively to the overall feel of the film (being intimate yet aggressive). Production designer Judy Becker’s job basically is to give the actors an organic space in which to work, and she succeeds wonderfully. The characters and their homes (which most of the film takes place in) feel real, again feeding into the documentary shooting style.

The cast is universally excellent in Silver Linings Playbook. John Ortiz and Jacki Weaver stand out in smaller supporting roles. Chris Tucker is great in his comeback performance. He is funny, and yet feels completely believable (not like he is merely putting on a show for the camera). Robert De Niro is an icon, but that said he has not really delivered great work or great films lately (probably not since the 1990s). Playing Pat Senior, De Niro is wonderful. He has such humanity to him, that his performance evokes pity and yet he still has an undeniable power enabling him to just command a scene. It is among his best work. Jennifer Lawrence, playing opposite two other phenomenal performances, almost steals the whole film (and for many viewers, she probably does). Her Tiffany is completely unafraid and strong, yet Lawrence also has such a vulnerability to her performances. She gives off so much emotion just with her face and eyes. It is probably the best female performance to date this year. Bradley Cooper announces himself as a fine actor with his performance as Pat. It is easily the best work of his career. Cooper brings such a destructive energy to Pat that the audience feels like he might explode at any moment. However, he also brings a lot of compassion to the role, making him likable when he probably should not be.

Summary & score: Silver Linings Playbook is a flourishing character drama that resonates with, enlightens and entertains its audience. 8/10

Anna Karenina (2012) – Review

Review: Anna Karenina is highly ambitious, lush and phenomenal – a completely insane adaptation of a literary masterpiece. The film is about Anna, a Russian aristocrat in the late 19^th century who throws away everything to engage in an affair with Count Vronsky.

Most literary adaptations are fairly straightforward – some rigorously follow their source material, while others take liberties. With Anna Karenina, Leo Tolstoy’s novel is immensely dense with rich detail and tons of characters. It is not just about Anna and her story; it is about Tolstoy’s Russia at that time and place, every nuance and intricate facet of daily life. Deciding that trying to make a completely faithful adaptation of such an extensive work would probably lead to a dull film (and still not quite do it justice). Instead, director Joe Wright has made something entirely different and brave.

Anna Karenina seems a prime candidate to be just a straightforward period drama/costume drama (and Wright has done well making films like that in the past), but his adaptation is dangerously ambitious (much like say The Clash’s Sandinista! or the Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer’s Cloud Atlas from earlier this year) and highly stylized. Taking such a bold risk leaves the film exposed to be very polarizing (something some will find brilliant and others very frustrating). Fans of the book that want a very faithful adaptation (who seem to fail to understand that film is a different medium than that of a novel and thus stories should be told in different ways) will likely not like the film.

Wright sets the film really in two areas – for Moscow and St. Petersburg, the scenes take place inside a theatre with actors moving between changing sets, backdrops and artifices. Characters play their roles within society and government, as scripted by the social conventions of the time. While all the time, in view of an audience (the other members of the society) constantly watching their every move. Everything is a tempered act put on for the benefit of others. The poorer people of the cities occupy the rigging and catwalks, while the grand ballrooms and government halls take center stage. The theatre is used as a metaphor by Wright to express the restraint and superficiality of Anna’s world – nothing is real. Wright’s camera is also an active part of these scenes, vigorously gliding through the sets and around characters (almost in a whirlwind). At first, this whole concept is strange and even unsettling, but as the film progresses and the audience becomes accustom to the world of the film it becomes common and not as noticeable (making the final shot of the film more staggering – almost as if the audience has forgotten that all the action in the cities has been confined to a theatre with nothing but fake backdrops).

The second area that Wright uses is a much more naturalistic space, which accompanies Levin when he returns to his country home and works in his fields (they are actual fields). Wright does this to both juxtapose the differences in city and country life and to illustrate the difference between Levin (a romantic) and those wrapped up in the high society life of the cities (where everything seems just a show put on, void of deeper emotion). Visually, Wright makes sure to give the countryside a very sweeping natural beauty (as opposed to the subterfuge of the changing theatre sets).

Wright’s film is also very much about love. He focuses on two stories: Anna’s affair with Vronsky and Levin’s love of Kitty. Anna begins the film naïve to love. She is happy because she does not really know what it is, that is until she meets Vronsky and feels something so strongly that she risks her place in society (a society completely constructed and ruled by men) to be with him, seemingly to forget or not care that she is but a player on the stage, and that everyone is watching her. Vronsky is very charming, but never feels completely trustworthy as a hero (someone that will not break Anna’s heart, like say Levin is to Kitty). This feeling that the audience has translates to Anna’s perception of Vronsky as well. She never completely trusts him, which sends her into fits of jealousy and self-destructive behavior, and yet she loves him above all else leading to her losing everything to be with him. In the construct of Wright’s narrative (the cities being staged in a theatre), Anna goes off book. She does not say the lines she is given and hit the marks laid out for her. She disrupts the order of things and thus stands out amongst the others and becomes an outcast. There are scenes as well with her husband Karenin who seems out of step in his own realm (in the government meetings) when he faces the truth about Anna’s affair. Wright’s narrative and visual structure for the film visually illustrates just how disruptive Anna is in such a rigid society of social rules.

Levin seems lost in the society in the city, constantly calling on Oblonsky (Anna’s brother, a man who constantly cheats on his wife and yet is still accepted among his peers) for help to fit in. His love is Kitty, a young woman just debuting in society. Kitty is fascinated and lured in by the colors and spectacle of it all. She does not see that it is all superficial, and rejects Levin initially. But, she comes to see the flaws of her beloved high society and is hurt and jaded by the lack of true emotional connection. Thus, when Levin realizes that she is his true love and tries to win her heart a second time, she accepts. When Kitty moves with Levin away from the fixed structure of the city and into the naturalism of the country, she throws off the strict terms that governed her conduct, allowing her true self to shine (a person with a kind heart). While Anna and Vronsky’s story ends in tragedy, condemned by the aristocracy, Levin and Kitty strive. This again can be taken as juxtaposition between the intransigent and shallow society of the city and the warmth and community of the country (also expressed by Levin working the fields with his serfs).

Visually, the film feels a bit frantic, as Wright’s camera is constantly moving at a brisk pace and the sets are constantly changing on the fly as characters move between spaces. However, the end result of all this kinetic energy is that Wright has formulated the film as an emotional ballet (of visual splendor). The production design also plays into this, as the colors and costumes very much represent the characters. Anna, in particular, has an array of beautiful outfits – their color scheme seemingly matching her mood, while Vronsky is primarily in white (saving her from a life without love) until he leaves her. Levin wears earthy tones and Kitty loses her refined garments once she takes on her life in the country. All of Wright’s visual choices support the narrative.

Now, with all this visual radiance and spectacle and Wright’s imposed narrative device, what about the characters? This film is not easy on the audience. First, they must adjust to Wright’s cinematic world (which takes a few scenes, because he does not ease the viewer into it – everything flies at the viewer all at once). Then, the audience is introduced to tons of characters, many of which play small but specific roles. However, Wrights does do a great job with his main characters, though at the same time Anna’s motivations may seem not spelled out enough for some viewers. She lives in a marriage somewhat void of real affection, attraction and love. Thus, when Vronsky (who also happens to be very handsome) courts her, she is taken in by him and feels things that she never has before, which drives her decisions. While the audience pities her, as she loses everything, she is not overly likable (like Kitty or Levin), which then makes it more difficult for the audience to strongly connect with her (which is why Wright gives a lot of screen time to Levin and Kitty as well). She is just someone who thinks she is above the rules and ultimately pays a heavy price.

Anna Karenina is a classic tragedy, adapted many times over, but maybe never as ambitiously and visually stimulatingly as this.

Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Joe Wright has always had a knack for using a very fluid camera, from the dancing/party scenes in Pride & Prejudice to the action scenes in Hanna, as well as his fantastic long takes in his films (notably in Atonement). In Anna Karenina, Wrights seems to have built off his work in Hanna (which was his most visually aggressive film before this). Much like the final scene in Black Swan in which the camera seems to dance with Nina, his camera here seems completely untethered, free to roam anywhere and everywhere, seamlessly transitioning between sets as characters move in and out and backdrops change. It is breathtaking. While most filmmaking, especially in Hollywood (but it is also true among indie films), seems to be becoming more conventional, it is relieving to see an auteur who is still willing to take big risks, and with this film they have paid off.

Dario Marianelli’s score has a wonderful Russian vibe to it (as it probably should). It is beautiful, as it anticipates and accompanies the emotional turmoil and triumphs of the characters. It feels both intimate and extravagant in different moments, much like the film itself (here is a suite). Seamus McGarvey’s cinematography is exquisite, elegant and magnificent, especially when the film takes on a more naturalistic look (where the use of light is angelic). Sarah Greenwood’s production design, however, steals the show (which is saying a lot as Marianelli and McGarvey both deliver some of the year’s best work). The array of colors is astounding. Each costume (designer by Jacqueline Durran) or set is wonderfully crafted to fit the tone of each character or scene (reminding me at times of David Lean’s Doctor Zhivago).

The cast is dazzling as well, with tons of great little bit parts and strong leads. Matthew Macfayden and Ruth Wilson (who is almost unrecognizable, at least she was for me – knowing her solely as the scene stealing Alice on Luther) stand out in small roles. Both Domhnall Gleeson and Alicia Vikander deliver breakthrough performances as Levin and Kitty, respectively. While most of the characters seem to be shallow and void of deeper emotion, Gleeson and Vikander exude a longing for true connection (which is why, ultimately they find each other). I expect they will both be receiving lots of acting gigs in the next few years. Jude Law has the difficult role of playing Karenin, a man who feels but actively tries to shut himself off from his emotions. His performance is understated and wonderful. Aaron Taylor-Johnson has all the charisma and bluster to make a great Vronsky. He also has a terrific mischievousness to his performance that work very well. Keira Knightley has found her niche in costume dramas. She is ravishing, magnificently gowned in a lush and elegant wardrobe throughout. But she does more than just look the part. Knightley captures the extreme fits of anguish and joyous highs of Anna’s affair with Vronsky, eliciting pity and in the end even heartbreak among the audience as Anna’s life comes to a tragic end. It is another excellent performance from her collaborating with Wright.

Summary & score: Anna Karenina is not going to work for everyone, as it is sure to garner opposing reactions among viewers. However, for those willing to take it in, it is an artistically rewarding and narratively grand experience. 8/10 

Movie of the Week – Pulp Fiction

Movie of the week: Pulp Fiction (1994).

An ensemble group of characters intertwine in four tales of violence and redemption.

Auteur writer-director Quentin Tarantino is maybe the most celebrated filmmaker to emerge in the 1990s (at least among his fans). Pulp Fiction is his greatest work (though, my personal favorite is Inglourious Basterds). Much like his debut, Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino’s wonderfully colorful characters in Pulp Fiction (his second film) carry the piece, and his dialog and the performances are what make it a classic.

Pulp Fiction is the film in which Tarantino fully established his working relationship with producers Bob and Harvey Weinstein (who also earlier produced True Romance, which Tarantino wrote). They have since produced all his films. He decided to reteam with cinematographer Andrzej Sekula (who also worked on Four Rooms) and production designer David Wasco (who has designed all Tarantino’s solo films other than his latest, Django Unchained), after their good work on Reservoir Dogs.

The film has a great ensemble cast with John Travolta (completely resurrecting his career), Samuel L. Jackson (who often gets Tarantino’s best material), Tim Roth, Amanda Plummer, Eric Stoltz, Bruce Willis, Ving Rhames, Maria de Medeiros, Rosanna Arquette, Uma Thurman, Frank Whaley, Steve Buscemi, Christopher Walken, Harvey Keitel, and Tarantino.

Pulp Fiction is arguably the best film of the 1990s (with The Shawshank Redemption, Schindler’s List and Goodfellas – I would also put forth Rushmore, The Big Lebowski and Trainspotting as my favorites). It was nominated for seven Oscars including Best Picture, but only won one for Best Writing. Like the films listed above, it is an essential film for fans of cinema and those who want to have a good working knowledge of the best films ever made. The dialog and performances are some of the best and most entertaining of the decade.

Trailer: Here

Available on: Blu-ray, DVD and Streaming

At the Movies – December 2012 – Part 3: Most Anticipated Films

Must-See of the Month:

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey (Peter Jackson) – Adventure Fantasy – Dec 14

Summary: Part one of three sees Bilbo Baggins set off on his journey to the Lonely Mountain with a bunch of Dwarves to take back a stolen treasure from the dragon Smaug. Filmmakers: Much to everyone’s delight, Peter Jackson is back at the helm for another adventure to Middle Earth. While Guillermo del Toro probably would have done a good job (as he was initially set to direct), having Jackson back instead is fantastic. He is again working with his The Lord of the Rings collaborators writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens, composer Howard Shore and cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, while production designer Dan Hennah is (sort of) new to the team (he was the art director for the LOTR Trilogy). Cast: Returning cast members include Hugo Weaving, Ian McKellen, Elijah Wood, Cate Blanchett, Christopher Lee, Andy Serkis, and Ian Holm. New to the cast are Lee Pace, Martin Freeman (in the lead), Benedict Cumberbatch, Billy Connolly, Richard Armitage, Aidan Turner, and James Nesbitt. Expectations: Does The Hobbit need to be a three part film? We will find out. Fans of the LOTR Trilogy are very excited for this, and are probably happy that Jackson will extract as much detail and story out of the source material as possible. From a cinematic aspect, this will be the first major release (that I can remember) to be exhibited at 48 frames per second (as opposed to the usual 24fps), which should give the film the highest picture quality and image smoothness. Though, it is rumored that the 48fps version will be limited in its release. 48fps should also benefit the film as Jackson also shot it in 3D. The 48fps will smooth out the picture helping the optical experience of 3D (hopefully lessening the issues people have with it). 48fps has tried before (multiple times since the 1970s) but has always failed, but Jackson and James Cameron are fully behind it as being superior. We shall see. Back to the film, The Hobbit is the biggest film of December and probably the film (with The Dark Knight Rises) most people have been looking forward to going into 2012. If it is great, then parts two and three will become the biggest films of 2013 and 2014. Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Worth Checking Out:

This Is 40 (Judd Apatow) – Comedy – Dec 21

Summary: We catch up with Pete and Debbie a few years after the events of Knocked Up. Filmmakers: Writer-director-producer Judd Apatow is known for being at the top of the comedy game right now (though some have said his latest work has fallen off, but I did like Funny People). The films Apatow writes and directs himself are generally funny, but also have a deeper emotional resonance (which is why This Is 40 has awards season buzz, even though it is an R-rated comedy). He is working with composer Jon Brion (Step Brothers), cinematographer Phedon Papamichael (The Descendants) and production designer Jefferson Sage (a frequent collaborator). Cast:  Apatow often works with the same actors over and over again (though, surprisingly Seth Rogen is not in this). Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann star, with Jason Segel, Megan Fox, Melissa McCarthy, Albert Brooks, Chris O’Dowd, John Lithgow, Lena Dunham, Maude Apatow, Iris Apatow, Ryan Lee, Charlyne Yi, Robert Smigel, and Annie Mumolo in support. Expectations: This Is 40 is Apatow’s fourth film, and possibly his best. It has a brilliant cast of very funny people, and tackles a topic that should be very relatable for his target audience (getting older and being in a long-term relationship – dealing with the issues that arise from both). This is a must-see for fans of comedy, and particularly comedies that not afraid to be great dramatic films (along with a lot of witty and vulgar jokes). I am very much looking forward to it. Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow) – Thriller – Dec 21

Summary: The details of the decade long hunt for Osama bin Laden that ended May, 2011. Filmmakers: Director Kathryn Bigelow reteams with writer Mark Boal for Zero Dark Thirty, hoping to rekindle the magic of their Best Picture Oscar-winning The Hurt Locker. Bigelow is also working with composer (and hardest working man in Hollywood) Alexandre Desplat (Argo), cinematographer Greig Fraser (Killing Them Softly) and production designer Jeremy Hindle (his first feature job as a production designer). Cast: The ensemble cast features Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, Taylor Kinney, Mark Strong, Scott Adkins, Chris Pratt, Jason Clarke, Mark Duplass, Harold Perrineau, James Gandolfini, Jennifer Ehle, Kyle Chandler, Frank Grillo, Stephen Dillane, Edgar Ramirez, and Mark Valley. Expectations: I think Zero Dark Thirty will be Kathryn Bigelow’s best film yet (yes, better than The Hurt Locker). It has a fantastic cast, and looks like an involving narrative about the buildup and ultimate capture (and death) of Osama bin Laden, with great performances and thrilling and powerful dramatic moments. The film should also factor heavily into awards season, with a likely Best Picture Oscars nomination (and people are talking a lot about Jessica Chastain’s performance). Trailer: Here. Review: Here.

Django Unchained (Quentin Tarantino) – Western – Dec 28

Summary: Django is a slave. But, a bounty hunter needs his help, promising to free him once they catch the men he is looking for. Once free, Django plans to rescue his wife from a brutal Mississippi plantation owner. Filmmakers: Writer-director Quentin Tarantino is maybe the most celebrated auteur of his generation. His films have redefined modern cinema (things like Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction). He has said that Django Unchained is part of a trilogy including Inglourios Basterds (which means that it is stylistically similar, as the plots have nothing in common). Tarantino is working with frequent collaborator and brilliant cinematographer Robert Richardson, as well as production designer J. Michael Riva (The Amazing Spider-Man; Django Unchained is his last film as he passed away this year). Cast: Jamie Foxx and Christoph Waltz star, with a fantastic ensemble in support headlined by Leonardo DiCaprio (and also including: Jonah Hill, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington, James Remar, Amber Tamblyn, Walton Goggins, Don Johnson, Robert Carradine, Bruce Dern, Michael Parks, and M.C. Gainey). Expectations: After how enjoyable Inglourious Basterds was, I cannot wait to see what Quentin Tarantino does with Django Unchained – a western. I love westerns, and Tarantino is the perfect person to make a modern (yet heavily classically influenced) take on the genre. Leonardo DiCaprio is among the frontrunners for Best Supporting Actor, and the film could very well rack up a few other nominations (like Best Picture, Screenplay and Cinematography). In December, it is a tough decision to pick which film is going to be the best, but Django Unchained very likely will be that film. Trailer: Here. Review: Here.