Paddington

Credible Credits

Year: 2015

Director: Paul King

Starring: Ben Whishaw, Hugh Bonneville, Sally Hawkins, Nicole Kidman, Peter Capaldi, and Julie Walters
Tagline: Please look after this bear.  Thank you.
Synopsis: A young, all-things-British-and-marmalade loving bear moves to London in search of a new home.

Review

I cannot remember the last time I was so thoroughly delighted at having watched a film.  By the time the credits rolled, I found myself chuckling at how terrific, wonderful, and charming Paddington was.  I do not use those adjectives lightly.

I'm not sure I was ever formally introduced to Paddington Bear (i.e., I don't recall reading the books as a child).  But I certainly knew the name and recognized the bear in the red hat and blue coat.  And tidbits like "Darkest Peru" and "marmalade" seemed to fit in my mental concept of the character.

When I saw the teaser trailer, I was intrigued.  But the main theatrical trailer -- which involved a toothbrush, ear wax, and a major plumbing fiasco -- left me rolling my eyes and expecting this to be another frenetic, low brow, slapstick-riddled debacle, ineptly ruining yet another childhood memory.  When the rave reviews started coming in, I was astounded.  Going into the theatre, I remained skeptical.

The movie trailer is Paddington's only fault.

Oh sure, not all the humor was quite my cup of tea.  But most of the humor was quite delightfully droll and wonderfully British.  Paddington isn't manic or rude.  He is completely charming, polite, and endearing.  And his earnest search for a new home will have you grinning.  Plus, as a bonus, he seems to have his own calypso band that serendipitously shows up on street corners to set the mood.  Where do I sign up for my own calypso band?

Whenever your main character is a CGI character, you need actors who are fully invested.  They are, after all, acting to nothing ... or perhaps a stuffed animal stand in.  The entire cast of Paddington -- which includes four Harry Potter veterans, a Downton Abbey alum, and the current Doctor -- is fully invested.  You get the feeling every one of them is honored to be bringing a cherished character to life and they all want to see it done right.  Nicole Kidman plays quite the over-the-top villain, which is what the story seems to call for (although she might be a bit intense for really young children).  Ben Whishaw rises to the challenge of being voice to Paddington, filling the bear with polite charm and innocent exuberance.

The story, in and of itself, is heartfelt and endearing.  But the film goes beyond that.  Paddington fully and brilliantly embraces its medium to tell the story.  It isn't just a story on film.  It's a story brought to life through the "magic" of cinema.  For instance, as Paddington is describing the Brown family in a letter, we actually pull back and see the house as if it were a doll house, a cutaway where you can see all the goings on at once.  Or there's the moment when Paddington is watching the old black and white newsreel of his home in Darkest Peru.  He walks right up to the screen projection ... and then right through it into his own vibrant memories.  The whole film is a cinematic joy to behold.

If this were a one word review, I would simply say, "Charming." At its heart, Paddington is a story about being a newcomer and finding where you belong. It is about family. If you have children, take them to see Paddington. If you don't have children, take your inner child.

*** Spoiler Section ***

The film had me from the opening sequence when the news reel video of the explorer talks about the "essentials" he took with him to Darkest Peru.  He lists off a "modest timepiece," and you see a hired local carrying a full size grandfather clock.

The film was already endearing long before the climax.  But throwing in both Mission: Impossible and Raiders of the Lost Ark references: perfect.  I laughed aloud at each.

Quotable Quotes

• "It's marmalade day!" -- Paddington
• "I named them after my mother ... and an exotic boxer I met in a bar once." -- the Explorer
• "Mrs. Bird has a hoover [vacuum] for every occasion." -- Paddington in a letter to his Aunt Lucy

ISFS

Unbroken

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Angelina Jolie

Starring: Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Takamasa Ishihara, and Finn Wittrock
Tagline: Survival. Resilience. Redemption.
Synopsis: The true story of Louis Zamperini: Olympic athlete, WWII bombardier, and prisoner of war.

Review

I got excited when I first heard about this film.  The trailers promised an outstanding, remarkable true story.  From what I've heard, the book is terrific.  And the story of Louis Zamperini's life is remarkable.  But there was nothing outstanding, remarkable, or terrific about this film.

Cinematically, it's not a bad film.  It's not a morally bereft film.  It wasn't shoddily made.  There are no gaping plot holes or failures in logic.  The cinematography was actually quite good.  And I remember thinking a few times that the musical score was quite pretty.  But ultimately, the film felt like a failure.

Honestly, if it weren't based on a true story, this would be a flat out terrible movie.  If it weren't true, it would be unbelievable.  Part of that is the somewhat confusing portrayal of the villain.  And part of that is because the film doesn't delve into the all important why.  Why did Zamperini remain unbroken, despite the unrelenting abuse he received?  The film failed to answer that.  From what we are given, he hung on through sheer grit, strength, and stubbornness.  As the film progressed, I actually felt less and less connected to Zamperini.  The film becomes simply grueling and unrelenting.

The tagline is "Survival. Resilience. Redemption."  Survival?  Check.  He survives the plane crash, survives being adrift, and survives being a POW.  Resilience?  Check.  He stays as positive as one could possibly expect while adrift at sea.  He gets up each time he falls (until no longer physically capable).  He refuses to compromise his integrity.  He perseveres through unrelenting abuse and ultimately triumphs over his abuser.  Redemption? ... Nope.

As portrayed in the film, Zamperini simply managed to not die.  Impressive?  Certainly.  But not necessarily heroic.  Survival, in and of itself, isn't heroic.  Surviving a horrendous ordeal and coming out a better person, learning to heal, and learning to forgive ... that's heroic.  That is Louis Zamperini's story.  That is why Louis Zamperini was "unbroken."  Yet none of that redemption was portrayed within the film.  Instead it was relegated to post film title cards.

Once the title cards appeared, that's when I realized what a complete failure the movie truly was.  I cannot think of another movie where the filmmakers so completely missed the point of the story they were trying to tell.  The movie (and biography) is titled Unbroken, and yet none of the filmmakers seemed to understand just what that meant.  What Zamperini did with his life after he returned home, that was where the story was.  I'm sure there were other POWs who also survived, but sadly returned home as broken men.

The film could have shown half the abuse and then spent the rest of the time focusing on how Zamperini adjusted to life back home.  He did return broken, with struggles, and nightmares, and PTSD.  His finding faith, learning to forgive the Japanese in general and his abusers in particular, and his ability to find healing and redemption should have been the crux of the story, the triumph of the story, not the afterthoughts in title cards.

One final pet peeve.  While the film's score was quite nice, the song that played during the credits was not.  I'm honestly not sure what it even was.  The song was so modern sounding that it felt completely incongruous with what I had just watched.  I tuned it out while watching the credits.

Louis Zamperini's life was an incredible story.  I'll give the film credit for introducing me to it.  But the film didn't do justice to what made his life such an incredible story.  I haven't read the book, but I'd recommend the book over the movie.

*** Spoiler Section ***

I'm not even sure this needs to go in the spoiler section, but I'll put it here any way.

If the filmmakers wanted the whole lifting the beam above the head thing to be the triumphant climax of the film (which it is), they really shouldn't have put it on the movie poster.  The poster spoils the climax.  Having seen the poster, I was basically waiting for that moment.  It was inevitable.  There's not much feeling of triumph in the inevitable.

Quotable Quotes

• "If I can take it, I can make it." -- Zamperini
• "The ground feels weird." -- Phil (after having been adrift at sea for 47 days)

ISFS

Into the Woods

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Rob Marshall

Starring: Emily Blunt, James Corden, Meryl Streep, Anna Kendrick, Chris Pine, Lilla Crawford, and Daniel Huttlestone
Tagline: Be Careful What You Wish For
Synopsis: Fairy tales converge as characters wish for, and search for, their happily ever afters.  But wishes don't always turn out as planned and danger is never far away when you travel into the woods.

Review

I have twice seen the video recording of the stage version (with Bernadette Peters as the Witch).  The first time I saw it was as a kid.  How old, I don't know.  But I remember enjoying act one and hating act two.  The next time I saw it was in college.  By that point I had no problem understanding that fairy tales were made for reimagining and that there is no one Cinderella or Rapunzel or whatever.  At that time I recognized the brilliance of Into the Woods and its beautiful and clever music.

So, I was excited to see the film adaptation.  And I was not disappointed.

Visually the film is quite fun and enjoyable.  I loved the woods and the feel of them.  They set the mood and feel for each scene.  Sometimes they seem warm and inviting.  Other times they are dark and claustrophobic.  I also liked that many of the settings felt more real than you normally get in a fairy tale.  The palace/castle felt more real than in say the animated Cinderella.  Jack and his mother's home seemed befitting their hardships.  Cinderella's stepmother's house felt lived in.  About the only visual that was a bit odd and jarring was inside the wolf.  But then how does one show inside a wolf without it feeling odd and jarring?

The music to Into the Woods is the best part.  It is gorgeous and sticks with you.  The lyrics are witty and clever (Agony is absolutely terrific as the two princes ham it up about their agonized love for two seemingly unreachable maidens).  The thing with the lyrics is they can go rather quickly, and you have to be paying attention; much of the story is contained within the lyrics.  Hearing the songs with a full orchestra is fantastic.  And the actors do a wonderful job with their numbers.  I actually didn't think that was Chris Pine singing as Cinderella's Prince, because he sounded so good and I had no idea Pine could sing.  The only weak link was Johnny Depp, who half talks, half sings his number.

There's a lot of humor within the film, but much of it is a subtle humor that can fly by if you're not paying attention.  I guess it is quirky.  And I like quirky.  I don't remember laughing aloud.  I do remember grinning throughout.  There's also a lot of heart.  All the major characters want something, wish for something.  And they are relatable things: going to a special event, having a child, being able to make ends meet.  Moreover, all the major characters lose something and must deal with the loss.

As for the story itself, Into the Woods starts as a fairly traditional fairy tale with everything coming together the way it's "supposed" to and everyone getting their happily ever afters.  But then the film takes a turn.  It becomes a story about consequences and responsibilities and finding that what you wished for wasn't what you wanted after all.  It becomes more realistic -- at least as realistic as you can be with giants, magic beans, and a witch.

Tying the music, the story, the humor, and the heart together is a superb cast.  They all do such a terrific job (well, I wasn't overly fond of Johnny Depp, but his character is unlikable anyway and he is seriously in the film all of 5 minutes).  Chris Pine is perfect as the charming (but ultimately insincere) prince.  Meryl Streep is a fantastic over-the-top witch.  Pretty much stealing the show, however, is Emily Blunt as the Baker's Wife.  She nails the role and makes it her own.

Obviously if you don't like musicals and/or fairy tales, Into the Woods isn't for you.  And even if you do, you still might not enjoy it.  Sondheim's music and lyrics have a depth that perhaps not everyone will appreciate or stay engaged with.  The story takes fairy tales and turns them on their heads.  So yeah, it's not a film for everyone.  But as for me, I absolutely loved Into the Woods and have been humming the songs since I saw it.  I personally recommend the film.

*** Spoiler Section ***

I'm by no means a purist when it comes to adaptations: whether from books or plays.  Different mediums have different needs.  And sometimes your aim is for a slightly different audience.  There are plenty of valid reasons to make changes when adapting material to film.

To be honest, I'm actually quite fine with the changes.  They had to cut a number of songs to make it two hours instead of three.  They lightened up on some of the violence.  And yes, they made certain elements more family friendly.

I actually really liked that Rapunzel ran off with her prince (rather than getting squashed by the giantess).  We've already got the failed marriage of Cinderella and her prince.  So it is nice to have someone's relationship work out.  I'm also rather glad Snow White and Sleeping Beauty were cut out.

The only problem with cutting out much of the cast getting killed by the giantess is, it makes killing the giantess even more morally questionable -- a question Red Riding Hood raises.  Jack is a thief and is responsible for the giant's death.  The giantess has plenty of grounds for demanding justice.

That is part of what makes Into the Woods so interesting.  It isn't a story of good vs. evil.  Some of the most likable characters make some of the poorest choices.  As the witch proclaims: "You're not good, you're not bad, you're just nice!"  The closest thing to an evil character is the wolf, who is just doing what wolves do (or at least what they do in fairy tales).  This is a world of grey areas, as embodied by the woods themselves.  Much is made of how people are different or change within the woods.  Characters go into the woods and they lose themselves, or they find themselves, or both.  The audience is left to ask of themselves what's good or what's right and to analyze the cost of getting what you think you want.

Quotable Quotes

• "I was raised to be charming, not sincere." -- Cinderella's Prince
• "It's the last midnight.  It's the boom splat." -- Witch
• "You can talk to birds?" Red Riding Hood to Cinderella
• "I need your shoe so I can have a baby."  "That doesn't make any sense." Baker's Wife and Cinderella
• "I wish ..." -- most of the cast
• "The woods are just trees.  The trees are just wood." -- multiple characters

ISFS

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

Credible Credits

Year: 2014

Director: Peter Jackson

Starring: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage, Lee Pace, Luke Evans, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, etc.
Tagline: The Defining Chapter
Synopsis: Having reclaimed the Lonely Mountain, the dwarves and Bilbo must now defend themselves as armies converge in the valley.  Meanwhile, Gandalf and the White Council learn more about the motives and identity of the Necromancer.

Review

I never did get around to re-reading The Hobbit before seeing any of the films.  So I'm not entirely sure what was changed and what remained the same.  But I remember enough to recognize the major changes.

Going into this finale, I had high hopes and expectations.  Perhaps they were a little too high.  The film is fun, beautiful, action-packed, and generally well crafted.  But it was not quite the epic send-off to Middle Earth I'd hoped for.

Visually, the film is all that you'd expect from Peter Jackson by this point.  Smaug -- though only briefly in this film -- is as epic looking a dragon as you could hope for.  There's not a lot of traveling in this one, so we don't get all the grand New Zealand vistas of previous films.  But the sets/settings there are, are beautifully imagined, especially frozen Ravenhill -- where Thorin and others battle the orc leaders -- and shadowy Dol Guldur -- where Gandalf has been imprisoned by the Necromancer.

One of the weaknesses of the film is how slow it is at times.  The pacing is pretty good -- moving from one scene or action sequence to another.  But there are a lot of quiet moments that seem unnecessarily prolonged.  Seriously, how long do we need to stare at [insert emotional character's name here]'s face?  Honestly, Jackson probably could have made The Hobbit as two films instead of three.  That said, I'll be buying the extended editions of all three when they come out.

In terms of additions for the films, Tauriel is a much more interesting/useful addition than Alfrid, the assistant to the Master of Laketown who then becomes the (mostly useless) assistant to Bard.  Tauriel is a sensible addition who is interwoven into the plot (more about her in the spoiler section).  Alfrid ... he seems to be there just for obnoxious moments of humor, or as a reminder of why elves and dwarves don't always like humans.  Honestly, I kept hoping someone would punch him (à la when Gandalf gives Denethor a swift knock to the head in Return of the King).

And then there's our favorite elf, Legolas, who also wasn't in the book but makes the most sense since it is his homeland and elven king Thranduil is his father.  I have no problem with his addition to the films.  I do have a qualm with his completely breaking the laws of physics.  Yes, he's an elf, with superhuman agility.  That still doesn't mean he can leap along falling stones.  There was some heavy duty eye rolling at that part.  Perhaps as a counterbalance to that impossibility, this film is the first time Legolas ever runs out of arrows.  Shocking.

One thing the film gets absolutely right is Thorin's descent into "dragon sickness" and Bilbo's unwavering loyalty to his friend.  Richard Armitage and Martin Freeman each do a fantastic job portraying the emotional struggles of their characters.  Their sometimes uneasy friendship does much to ground the movie and keep Thorin relatable when he's otherwise being a jerk.  It's also quite nice to see how much Bilbo has grown over the course of his adventures.  It's great watching how changed he is in his interactions with Thranduil and Gandalf.

For me, the most epic part of the film was the scene in Dol Guldur where the White Council battles the Nazgul and the Necromancer.  While not in The Hobbit, the event is one that occurred (more or less) within the history of Middle Earth.  Watching the Nazgul emerge from the shadows to do battle with Elrond and Saruman was just plain cool.  The setting, special effects, characters, and action just come together in epic fashion, reminiscent of LOTR.

If you saw all of the Lord of the Rings and the previous two Hobbit films, of course you should see this one.  It (mostly) wraps everything up and sets the stage for The Fellowship of the Ring.  It has enough moments of awesome, enough heart, and enough epic scope to be a worthwhile final trip to Middle Earth.  It just could have been more.

*** Spoiler Section ***

Having read The Hobbit, I did remember that Kili, Fili, and Thorin would all die.  So that felt rather inevitable when watching the film.  I was so impressed by Thorin's clever dispatch of Azog by stepping off the ice and making him fall into the water to be trapped under the ice.  Clever, but ultimately futile.

Since I knew Kili was doomed, I naturally assumed the Kili/Tauriel relationship was going to be the Middle Earth version of Romeo and Juliet, with both being killed.  That Tauriel survives was a huge surprise.  But then they didn't even sufficiently wrap up her story to explain her complete absence from LOTR.  She's been banished from her own home, so where does she go?  Why does she disappear?  Does she depart Middle Earth from the Grey Havens?  Tie up the loose end!

I was also a bit annoyed with Tauriel at the end.  Yes, she was freshly grieving her love.  Of course she didn't want to deal with the pain.  But as I watched that final scene with her all I could think was that she was the anti-Arwen.  Arwen chose the bitter with the sweet.  She chose Aragorn even knowing he would someday die and it would break her heart.  In that moment, Tauriel seemed not as strong or admirable a character.  And if they were going for a comparison with Arwen, they could have done more to really build it up.  Or they could have just killed Tauriel.

Also a little disappointing was the lack of wrap up for Bard and the rest of the humans.  It's neither mentioned nor even implied that Bard becomes king of Dale, which is what happens in the book.

Quotable Quotes

• "You should have stayed dead!" -- Elrond to the Nazgul
• "Nothing gets passed me, sire."  "Except an army of elves, it would seem." -- Alfrid and Bard
• "It's out of the question.  I won't allow it."  "I'm not asking you to allow it, Gandalf." -- Gandalf and Bilbo
• "Leave Sauron to me!" -- Saruman [We know how well that works.]

ISFS