Boss Smaug.

And so it continues.  Years after thinking that Peter Jackson was done with Middle Earth and was returning to more art-house fare like King Kong,  Gandalf and the gang come back with three new films and more adventure and maps that you could find in any episode of Survivor.

Last year's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey was a fun ride, but the seriousness of the previous films had been left at the door to Bilbo's house, and instead we were given a more light-hearted adventure that was just lots of fun and less dark in tone.

Now Jackson and Co. return a year later with The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug, which brings back the elements of the original LOTR trilogy, while at the same time, giving the audience a sense of amazement.  Amazement not unlike realizing that a show like Duck Dynasty is still on the air while HBO's Carnivale was cancelled after only two seasons.

There has been a lot of backlash about these new films.  Some Tolkien purists feel that making a 200-page book into a 9 hour 3 film trilogy is a little on the absurd side, but then if Opie can make a movie out of a 54-page Dr. Seuss book, well then I guess ol' Peter can do whatever he wants too.

For me, these films are my Harry Potter.  I never was an HP fan, and really could not care less about that franchise, but I know there are people that love 'em, and that's OK.  Perhaps it's because I'll always see Snape as Hans Gruber and I'm expecting him to say to Harry at any moment, "Shoot...the glass!" (That's a Die Hard ref for the uninitiated.)

Why do I love Jackson's films so much?  Because they are summer movies released at Christmas.  They are what movie making is all about.  Perhaps I just didn't care about the characters in the HP franchise because they weren't interesting to me, but also because I couldn't tell you anything memorable from the 4 films I saw from that series.  It just wasn't for me.  With LOTR and The Hobbit, there's always something memorable. And what Jackson does is carefully construct series of events in a way that falls into place and makes for an entertaining-thrill ride.

WWMD? (What would Magneto do?)

Are these movies perfect? Nope.  But that's OK.  When you  go to a movie like Smaug, is it REALISM you're looking for?  Last time I checked, an evil being that breathes angry smoke and fire and talks in confusing riddles only existed when someone listened to the Yeezus album.

Case in point:  This is an adventure.  A pure adventure put on the screen to entertain, but it's done in the correct way.  Jackson isn't Michael Bay-ing it here with worthless characters, dumb acting, and explosions that are just there for the sake of being there.  (Oooh, Armageddon! Look! Kewl!)  There's none of that.  Although, some may disagree. While Jackson added some characters to the script that were not in the book and changed a few things, it doesn't detract from anything.  At least not for me.

What follows is an awesome tapestry of moviemaking and fantasy.  Ian McKellan's Gandalf is still providing us with us his "Oh, crap.  Not again." faces, and Martin Freeman's Bilbo is the perfect younger version to Ian Holm's Bilbo in the original trilogy.  While much has been said that Bilbo has been brushed aside and made a secondary character in this chapter, I disagree.  Yes, there are several scenes where Bilbo is not present, but that is because it's necessary when it leads up to his first confrontation with the dragon Smaug, which allows his plucky and somewhat simple personality to really shine through for the first time.  It's the ultimate meeting of good and evil.

Which brings me to Smaug, probably one of the greatest dragons ever put on screen. Benedict Cumberbatch's portrayal is dark and so nerve-wrecking, I have to admit that I was truly scared and terrified in some scenes.  I felt like the little kid who had to go home and check under his bed when I got home to make sure no monsters were lurking around.  That's how realistic his portrayal was.  

You know what's really scary?  Waiting TWO YEARS in-between Seasons 2 and 3 of Sherlock!
HA HA HAAAAAAA!!!!

While some may balk at the film's almost 3-hour running time, when the ending cuts us off and leaves us with a cliffhanger for next year, I wanted to go back and see every minute of the film again, which is something I haven't done since the original Jurassic Park.

There's so much more to say, but do you really need to know anything more about these films?  Peter Jackson continues to give audiences the entertainment they deserve, unlike other films in the genre that seem more interested in providing their audience with a half-assed version of a Legend Of Zelda knockoff.  

It's dangerous to go alone. So make sure you have a good script and direction to take with you.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug (2013) 
Directed by Peter Jackson

161 minutes

Grade: A

Whistle While You Lurk.

It's not what you think.  It really isn't.  How many times have we seen previews for movies about a kidnapping or an abduction and just assume it's the same old, same old?  The scenario really seems to have been made into a cliche within itself.  And it has, but once in a long while, a film will come along that will completely turn the genre on its ear.  A prime example is David Fincher's Se7en, which took the serial killer premise and totally reinvented it and even displayed a homage to the old cop movies of the 70's a la Serpico and The French Connection.

And that's what happened with Prisoners.  It's a film that provides the viewer with a fantastic mystery that has so many puzzle pieces, a second viewing is almost required.  The more you look, the more you see.  There are things you may have missed the first time, and when seeing it again, not only does everything seem to fall into place, but the tone of the movie changes.  

The story involves the disappearance of two young children, and the measures which are taken to find them.  That's really it.   Not much more of the story can be divulged here without giving away the film's many twists and turns.  It's an adult mystery to be sure.  Mr. Wolverine himself (Hugh Jackman) puts away his blades and turns to out and out rage and anger as his defense to find his missing daughter.  Donnie Darko (Jake Gyllenhaal) steps in as the police detective assigned to the case and knows that this time, he's not looking for a demonic rabbit spouting messages about the end of the world.  

What follows contains the purest form of moviemaking I have seen in a long, long time.  This ain't the latest Lifetime TV-movie where the acting, editing, direction, and script are more ridiculous than the nuptials at a Kardashian wedding.  This is serious stuff.  Bryan Singer was originally in the director's chair, and while I respect Singer as a director, but still haven't forgiven him for Superman Returns (To Pull In A Cash Cow For Warner Bros.), I'm glad he didn't take the reins on this one.  It would have been a very different film.  Instead, Canadian unknown Denis Villeneuve took over and produced a picture of quiet, staggering suspense.

"Look, I told you.  If you even THINK about doing another X-Men movie, I'm sending Frank after you."

Every shot in the film is carefully constructed, a technique that Stanley Kubrick and Christopher Nolan also used.  Every time a scene starts or stops, there's a reason for it, not just filler to pad the 153 minute running time.   The supporting performances are excellent, including Terrence Howard as the father of the other abducted daughter, Maria Bello and Viola Davis as the loving but much-suffering mothers, and Oscar winner Melissa Leo turning in a powerful performance as an aunt who loves her nephew (played to the creepy factor by the always great Paul Dano.)

If this review is starting to sound as vague as a LOST script, it's because it is.  Not much can be said about the film.  However, most importantly, it's Jackman and Gyllenhaal's show, all the way to the end.  Their scenes together boost the film to almost sheer perfection.  Without them, it may not have worked.  After you see them in each scene together, you realize that nobody else could really have played these characters so well.  Gyllenhaal and Jackman both give the performances of their careers, and both should receive Oscar nominations.  

"Wait, you're NOT Crispin Glover?  Sorry, my bad."

And when we finally get to the end of the film,  we might wonder what REALLY happened.  But if you're paying attention, it's all there and done with such craftmanship, you can't help but applaud it.  It's not an uplifting movie by any means, and it's a very tough film to watch.  It's about hardship, it's about struggling families, and most important, it's about chances and choices.

This movie was shot in Georgia where I live, and I have a good friend who worked as a forensics consultant on the film.  It certainly adds to the gritty nature of the story, and I can say that more than anything it displays a very documentary-like tone about it.  And while the story is fiction, it's definitely true-to-life. Parts of it reminded me of Truman Capote's In Cold Blood, which was based on an actual incident.  But Prisoners makes the audience feel, think, and question.  And that's three things you could never do with the Lifetime movie of the week.  It would be like comparing The Sopranos to TLC's Cake Boss.  Fugghetaboutit.

Prisoners, (2013) Directed by Denis Villeneuve
153 minutes
Grade: A

It's The Great "Pumpkin".

So much can be said about 2002's curiosity piece Pumpkin.  My girlfriend had me watch it the other night for the first time, and there's just so many questions to be answered.  Is the film a satire about sorority sisters and the stress of college sports?  Is it a dark comedy à la Todd Solondz meets John Waters with the extreme "shock values" removed?  Or is it a statement on the lives of the mentally and physically handicapped and how they relate to society, or rather, how society relates to them?

To tell you the truth, I have no earthly idea.

This is a multi-layered film, with so much going on in it, you have to wonder what the screenwriters wanted to accomplish.  But suffice to say, it's definitely different.  Is it a flawed movie?  Perhaps, but utterly I have to say that I enjoyed the hell out of it, even if I'm still not sure what I saw.  But keep in mind, I had the same reaction when I saw the Shyamalan POS The Village, and the real confusion about that "movie" was how so many talented people decided to throw their careers into the paths of that high-octane bus from Speed. 

But Pumpkin's story is different.  For the unfamiliar, it involves the always wonderful (and co-producer) Christina Ricci as a Breck-girl type sorority sister taking on an activity of a so-called "charity" that will allow the sorority to interact with the mentally and physically disabled, whereby hopefully "improving" the lives of the handicapped for the better, which in the end, will allow the sisters to beat the rival sorority that they have lost to for so many years.

Carolyn McDuffy (Ricci) is assigned to "Pumpkin", a loveable and surprisingly very smart young man, who appears to instantly fall in love with Carolyn.  Carolyn is taken off-guard by Pumpkin's kindness, but within the course of a few days, she slowly realizes herself falling in love with him, despite the fact that she has a boyfriend Kent who is the star tennis player at the college.

What follows in the next 117 minutes is really indescribable.  To be honest, I cannot rationally convey all that I want to say within this review.  I basically have to quote the late, great Roger Ebert and say that Pumpkin "defies description".  And it's so true.  While I was watching it, I wasn't sure where or what the emphasis of the story was supposed to be.  It was an uncomfortable viewing, but strangely, in a good way.  Not in an "Oh, Lucas went back and f**ked with something else in the original trilogy?" way.

"But what does it all MEEEEEEAAAAANNN?????"

The film takes the approach of an over-the-top, Douglas Sirk melodrama, with the initial main characters acting in ways that you might find in a 1950's educational documentary about the dangers of bad manners at the dinner table.  (Yes, that film exists, and was riffed on MST3K if you are interested.)  And strangely enough, the only character that seems to be giving the most honest portrayal is Pumpkin himself.

The movie takes several dark turns, none of which I will reveal here, and while it may seem like this labyrinthine puzzle of supposedly 60's cheese (the movie states at the beginning that it takes place "some time ago", but the actual time frame is not made clear), there are several absorbing scenes that you can't help see as a brilliant curiosity observation into the perils and hardships of everyday life.  Parts of the film made me angry, such as Brenda Blethyn's turn as Pumpkin's ill-suffering, alcoholic mother, who seems to just want her troubled son to take the path of something he doesn't really want, and sees Carolyn's interference as something that "will pass".

However, the film works most importantly because of its ridiculous, tongue-in-cheek approach.  A fight scene and a resolution towards the end of the film would have had a movie-goer in any other film throwing their hands up in disgust and thought they had just watched Twilight: The Dawn Of More Bad Acting.  But the film's heart never falls astray and with all that has come before, it makes the ending much more plausible and easier to accept.

The supporting cast is excellent, which includes Lolita's Dominique Swain, Freddy Got Fingered's Marisa Coughlan, Sam Ball as Carolyn's tennis-playing beau, and in probably one of the funniest (if you can call it that) and most memorable performances, Harry Lennix as the extremely high-strung poetry teacher.  He channels such over-the-top anger and resentment that would make even Bill Hicks blush.

And then there is Hank Harris, who portrays Pumpkin.  Personally, I have not seen a portrayal of a mentally handicapped person acted so well since Leonardo DiCaprio climbed the water tower in What's Eating Gilbert Grape.  An X-Files and Star Trek veteran, Harris brings a certain amount of sweetness and honesty to his role that is rarely seen in movies.  It's an amazing performance, and it's a shame it wasn't recognized more.

Pumpkin is not a mainstream movie, to say the least.  If anything, it's a definite WTF movie times 10.  I cannot fully give all the reasons why I liked the film.  I laughed, I got angry, I even thought I was going to start hating it.  But whatever the reason, the film struck a chord  that made me question what I had just seen.  Some audiences may see that as not what a film is supposed to do, and would rather be slapped in the face with the next explosive blockbuster from Roland Emmerich, and that's OK.  We're all different.  We all have different ideas.  And in the case of Pumpkin, the idea was brilliant, even if we're not sure what the hell it was all about.  I guess you could call it a trick and a treat.

Pumpkin (2002), Directed by Anthony Abrams & Adam Larson Broder
Grade: A