The Hobbit (3 stars)

Expectations:

I wasn’t impressed from the trailers for the prequel to The Lord of the Rings. In fact, I laughed during the dwarves’ song because it was just too much. We’ll see how the movie plays out. I do not have high hopes.

Review:

The good thing about The Hobbit is that it has moments of awesome; the bad thing is, in a movie two hours and forty-six minutes long, those moments are rare. It is clear, though, that Peter Jackson loves Middle-Earth and had, at least cinematography-wise, a strong desire to return viewers to that lush, realized world. Whether or not Middle-Earth can itself withstand three more three-hour films is another thing.

The Hobbit, as a story, just isn’t as epic as The Lord of the Rings. It is a more mundane, and in a lot of ways, more human story; filling in the tale with multitudes of flashbacks and footnotes of Middle-Earth will not make the telling stronger nor more interesting. Indeed, The Hobbit suffers greatly simply because it just doesn’t get to the point soon enough: forty-five minutes goes by before Bilbo finally finally finally decides to get on this little adventure with Gandalf and the dwarves. It felt like Jackson was reintroducing viewers to a world that was already familiar.

That familiarity is part of the problem, too: to much of the time the heroes’ journey through panoramic scenes of snow-capped mountains and lush forests and grasslands felt too much like Frodo’s journey in LOTR, in look and scope. Again: this should not be a sick-epic film. It is The Hobbit. Treating it as if it had the world-crushing epicness of LOTR robs the film of its tension, and of its smaller-scale heroics (i.e. Bilbo mercifully letting Gollum live.) The nods and winks to the previous films were a little much too.

All that said, The Hobbit isn’t a total waste of time. Martin Freeman as Bilbo captures perfectly the hobbit’s hopefulness and heroics, but it is Andy Serkis as Gollum who steals the show in the eight minutes he has on screen. The riddles scene between Bilbo and Gollum is glorious – both funny and terrible.

The Hobbit isn’t a great film and, as far as prequels go, it relies too much on the same visuals of the LOTR films to feel fresh or to keep the viewer interested for three hours. Its good moments, however, are worth the watch and, though I go into the next two films even more warily, I still go.

Review: The Master (3 stars)

The Master is perhaps Paul Thomas Anderson’s most ambitious film, ruminating deeper on what makes us us and what makes us do what we do more than even Magnolia. It is also his least structured film; there is no real beginning or real end or, really, even a middle. It just flows along, much like that opening shot of choppy ocean waves.

With stunning performances from Joaquin Phoenix as drifter/boozer Freddie Quell, Phillip Seymour Hoffman as  ”writer, doctor, nuclear physicist, theoretical philosopher, but above all a man” Lancaster Dodd, and Amy Adams as true believer Peggy Dodd, it’s hard not to fall in love with The Cause – the cultish religion created by Dodd and Peggy. Because you want to believe too. You want to believe whatever mumbojumbo Dodd spouts, you want to believe that Freddie will find his place in the world, you want to believe as fervently and as acutely in something as Peggy believes in this.

For all its beautiful cinematography and powerful performances, however, The Master is a hollow egg. It is fragile on the outside, and you know it is, and you’re waiting to see it crack because you think that on the inside even if you don’t find answers you’ll find something. Instead, you meander around the surface for awhile, looking for the crack, looking for a way in, and then when you finally get inside, you find the center is a void.

Yet, It still raises interesting questions: the master/disciple dynamic, the kinship Freddie and Lancaster have for each other, how fictive elements impact and influence the real world, etc. The problem with The Master is that it never seems quite sure what it thinks about any of the questions it raises.

Paul Thomas Anderson is an audacious and daring director who refuses to cater to audience expectations and may be the finest filmmaker in a generation, but with The Master the ambition exceeds the execution.

Expectations: The Master

The Master may be, for me, the most anticipated film of the year. I may have a man-crush on George Clooney, but that is extended to stalker-man-crush for Paul Thomas Anderson. I love Magnolia. I love Boogie Nights. I really like Punch Drunk Love. If it was okay to marry a film and make a family of little Daniel and Danielle Plainviews I would do that with There Will Be Blood. Okay. So The Master - that teaser with Joaquin Phoenix talking and Johnny Greenwood’s crazy tense music behind him – was possibly the best teaser for any movie ever. Yes, I know I’m being fanboy. These are Expectations, whaddayawant! Everything I’ve seen about this movie makes me think I’m going to love it as least as much as I loved There Will Be Blood, which I consider to be one of the finest pieces of filmmaking since…umm…the beginning of films.