“The Hobbit” trilogy comes to an end, but not nearly soon enough

I can see why Peter Jackson wanted to make “The Hobbit” into three movies instead of two. Besides making 50 percent more money, much more character development happens and the story feels more complete—a beginning, a middle and an end.

But it didn’t need to be three movies. It didn’t even need to be two. Nevertheless, we got a third Hobbit movie anyway, and for the most part it was not bad.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is the third installment of the Hobbit movie franchise and sixth Middle Earth movie co-written and directed by Peter Jackson. Beginning almost immediately where the previous film left off, the vengeful dragon Smaug is destroying the peaceful hamlet of Laketown as Bilbo (Martin Freeman) and the dwarves lay claim to the Lonely Mountain.

But their celebration is short-lived as Thorin (Richard Armitage) grows obsessed with finding the Arkenstone and keeping all the treasure inside for himself and his relatives. Meanwhile, Gandalf (Ian McKellen) is rescued by his elven and wizard friends where an unexpected emergence of Sauron, the main antagonist of “The Lord of the Rings,” occurs.

Unfortunately for all involved the struggle has only just begun, because armies of dwarves, elves, orcs, humans and goblins converge at the base of the Lonely Mountain, all with a plan to take the treasure inside. The fight for the future of Middle Earth has only just begun.

First of all, Martin Freeman is Bilbo Baggins. No other actor has captured the character or what a hobbit is supposed to be except for Freeman, though Ian Holm came close. Freeman’s acting wasn’t underwhelming or over-the-top, but spot on. The subtlety and sincerity in every move he made and word he said showed a deep and vulnerable man—or hobbit—that makes these movies worth it.

However, when a movie by the same people who made “The Lord of the Rings” looks like it’s trying too hard to look like “The Lord of the Rings,” something is wrong. It may be the 48 frames per second, it may be the new cameras and 3D or it may just be the special effects crew, but sometimes this movie looked more fake than Fellowship of the Ring did 13 years ago.

The actual battle with the five armies tries to be as big and exciting as the battle in Return of the King, but it just looked like a bunch of CGI and green screen in 3D. Even the soundtrack sounded more like a parody of the Lord of the Rings scores than a serious score for The Hobbit.

The story, for the most part, is okay. Everything that was actually in the novel, or was very much in the spirit of the novel, worked wonderfully. But everything that came from the appendixes or other Middle Earth books and was shoe horned into these movies was distracting and wasteful…except for Sylvester McCoy as the wizard Radagast. He was fun.

Ian McKellen was great as Gandalf, which should be no surprise to anyone. All the actors who portrayed the dwarves, elves, Laketown men and orcs were just fine. I’m surprised that in three movies clocking in at eight hours total, I didn’t really care about what happened to any one of the supporting characters. Honestly, their stories weren’t very interesting and their motivations not very impressive. So for what script they had, everyone was good.

What we needed was more Bilbo. If we were given two three-hour movies with every scene that had no direct connection to Bilbo cut out, the movies would have been better. It is called “The Hobbit,” after all. Shouldn’t Bilbo be the central hero with the story surrounding him? He is the narrator and “writer” of the book in Lord of the Rings. He wouldn’t have known what was going on in nearly 30 percent of what we saw in this trilogy.

At least there were some short scenes with British and Australian greats like Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Cate Blanchett and Benedict Cumberbatch as the voice of Smaug. The first three are extremely important in the Lord of the Rings films, so seeing them encounter Sauron does give an insight into their character in the later stories/earlier films. And Cumberbatch is a great actor voicing Smaug, an equally great villain.

If you’re a fan of J.R.R. Tolkien’s books, then you will like some parts of this movie. If you like fantasy and action/adventure, you will like some parts of this movie. In the end, it’s the final Middle Earth installment that could have been so much better, but without Peter Jackson in charge it could have been so much worse as well.

“A Charlie Brown Christmas” (1965)

The sarcasm. My goodness, the sarcasm.

Written by the author of the beloved comic strip, Chuck Schultz, this is the first TV special with the Peanuts characters. When Charlie Brown complains about the overwhelming materialism and commercialism he sees around him during the Christmas season, Lucy suggests that he become director of the school pageant. Charlie Brown accepts hoping to find the true meaning of Christmas, but it proves to be a frustrating struggle.

Everything about this special screams 1965–the animation, the humor and even the pacing of the story. Because it’s the first special, it seems more like a long version of the comic instead of a moving cartoon.

But that’s no reason to not see it. Snoopy, Charlie Brown’s dog, steals every scene he’s in. He never talks, but his gestures and facials expression say everything and it’s hysterical. See it just for him if for nothing else.

All the other characters are very well defined because of the years in a comic. Now they just talk instead of having speech bubbles above their heads. Lucy is a blunt and self-absorbed brat, Sally is overly creepy with her love for Linus and Charlie Brown can’t get over how he thinks no one likes him.

What I’ve always liked about the Peanuts specials’ humor is the mix of jokes for adults and children. Your little sibling or cousin probably won’t get some of the  jokes commenting on society–even if they are dated–but they’ll enjoy Snoopy mocking Lucy at the Christmas pageant.

It’s not surprising that the special has a few scenes of silence to just take in the surroundings and show off the atmosphere with a beautiful jazz score. These slower scenes with no dialogue may not hold the kids’ attentions, but the adults will appreciate the simplicity.

All the usual scenes that have appeared in all the other Charlie Brown specials start here: the dance party with Schroeder at piano and the Peanuts theme, Charlie Brown seeing Lucy at her psychiatrist stand where all she cares about is making 5 cents, not helping Charlie Brown, Linus’ relationship with his blue blanket being jeopardized and many more.

I like this Christmas special because of its mix of the two sides of the holiday. There is the religious aspect but there is also the modern social aspect. There are some Christmas hymns sung and played, but most of the score is cool jazz. The pageant has the Nativity scene in it, but Lucy also wants a Christmas tree and her role is as the Christmas Queen.

This mix of religious and secular messages shows how the holiday can be for everyone and not for only one group of people. But it doesn’t stop there.

One of the biggest questions is how much materialism should be in Christmas? Charlie Brown is repelled by the commercialism around him. Even Snoopy enters and decoration contest for decking out his dog house! But in the end, does the commercialism win or does the community come together?

Although it’s short, this special has everything. This is one of the first Christmas specials children see and remember for years to come.  It says a lot that this is the 49th year of the special and it has been shown every year for as long as I can remember, which is only about 20 years, but I digress.

I say this is the perfect family special for everyone–for kids from one to 92. There is a joke for everyone and something new every three minutes. Even with some dated aspects, many parts live on because of how they display the true meaning of the holiday.

‘Mockingjay’ takes the ‘Hunger Games’ franchise to a higher, powerful level of cinema

And I thought the second “Hunger Games” movie was intense and emotional!

Although “Mockingjay – Part 1” contains no actual Hunger Games, the threat of death remains at every turn. The events of “Catching Fire” occurred only a short time before this movie begins, so little information needs to be told to the audience. However, you have to see the first two movies in order to understand most of this one. And it’s worth it.

After destroying the Hunger Games and shaking the confidence of the Capitol and its leaders, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is rescued and taken to the so-thought “destroyed” District 13.

Under the leadership of President Coin (Julianne Moore) and the advice of her friends, Gale, Finnick and Beetee, Ktniss becomes the Mockingjay, a symbol of rebellion for the people under the oppression of the tyrannical President Snow (Donald Sutherland).

Francis Lawrence returns as director of this film having previously directed “Catching Fire,” and I don’t think this film would have worked without him in the director’s chair. Changing directors after every film can hurt the execution of the overall vision. Francis Lawrence brought the second book to the screen in a way that perfectly captured the emotional and mental struggles of the characters.

For “Mockingjay,” Lawrence once again delivered a solid movie that is approachable for anyone regardless of age, gender or ethnicity. Anyone can understand the themes and commentaries throughout–if they saw the first two movies, of course.

But he didn’t do it alone.

First, the script is tight and runs very smoothly. Because the final installment is split between two movies that total about four-and-a-half hours, some scenes can be drawn out a bit more as sections of the book would have been. You’d think this would make parts of this movie drag, but it’s the exact opposite.

The audience can experience what’s going on at the same pace as the characters without being rushed due to time constraints. Yes, some scenes do go on for a while, but this is part one of two of a story about a revolution. There should be build up and tension. Scenes should run a bit longer to show just how high the stakes are for these people.

Second, the cast is phenomenal. Everyone did well in the previous two films, but they all show off their very best for this movie. I highly doubt any of the actors phoned it in because the emotion and exhaustion is right there on the screen.

Jennifer Lawrence is one of the best young actors of the 2010’s, and the experience she gains with each new role is evident in her performance of Katniss. When she was rescued from the games in the last film, Katniss’ friend and ally Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) is taken to the capitol to be used as propaganda against the rebels.

When Katniss sees what torture and brainwashing Peeta has gone through, Lawrence is at her best giving us a mortified Katniss. Learning that he has been reprogrammed to turn against her and the cause, she is heartbroken for all the world to see.

After losing her home, her friends, and her hope, Peeta’s aligning with the capitol is the last straw for Katniss, and Jennifer Lawrence shows us with a powerful performance.

The saddest part of the movie is seeing Philip Seymour Hoffman. Thank goodness they completed most of filming before his untimely death, because I don’t know what the filmmakers would have done without him.

His role as Plutach, a previous Capitol employee working with the reels, is tough to watch. The character is passionate about the cause, and it is seen in Hoffman’s face how important the role was to him because he had a passion for acting like no other in the 21st century.

Through all the other great character actors, from Woody Harrelson to Elizabeth Banks and from Julianne Moore as Coin to Donald Sutherland as Snow, the dedication to this story blooms. And it’s all because of their acting.

Of course, the brilliant portrayals come from an already excellent script which comes from an already excellent young adult novel. Overall, there isn’t a wasted person on screen at any time.

All the elements in the movie work because they full enforce the story and the characters. With that said, it looks great, too. I believe this is a post-apocalyptic world and these people have lived and died here for a long time. The atmosphere is real and present throughout.

The music is very powerful as well. It doesn’t play throughout the whole film, but when you hear it, it completely adds to the scene. It conveys emotion by using a sense other than sight. And it’s beautiful.

Anyone who liked the first and second movies will like this one, too. The characters continue to develop, there is an ever-growing plot that becomes more interesting with each scene and the world is believable in every sense.

I can’t wait to see what the final film has in store. For now, this third installment is a powerful and memorable beginning of the end.

Let His People Go Already! An “Exodus: Gods and Kings” Movie Review

Ridley Scott’s ‘Exodus’ fails by trying to be both epic and character focused, but it looks great!

This movie is about as unsure of itself as Moses when he learned he was actually Hebrew and destined to lead his people to freedom. It’s too long and action packed to just be a character study and relationship-focused story, but it’s not long enough or eventful enough to be like the epics of the 1950s and 60s like “Ben-Hur” and “Spartacus.”

At least it’s very pretty to look at.

Released just a few days before the first day of Hanukkah, “Exodus: Gods and Kings” is the newest adaptation of the story of Moses and Ramses from the Book of Exodus. Once a general and Prince of Egypt, Moses is banished by his step-brother Ramses after discovering Moses was born a Hebrew slave but saved and adopted by the pharaoh’s daughter.

After leaving Egypt, Moses (Christian Bale) encounters God through a burning bush where He tells Moses to release His people from slavery in Egypt. Moses obeys and demands Ramses let God’s people go free, but when he ignores the warning God unleashes 10 plagues upon Egypt, resulting in the death of thousands.

Ramses (Joel Edgerton) can no longer endure the plagues and allows Moses and the Hebews to leave. They escape to the Red Sea. Shortly after their departure, Ramses changes his mind and pursues them.

Even though Exodus is a big story, the relationship between Moses and Ramses has always the most important part even though it is small and personal. With a total of four writers, one of them should have thought to put a lot more focus on their relationship. They were brothers, and yet in this 2 hour 30 minute spectacle they barely talk.

“The Prince of Egypt,” the 1998 animated musical adaptation, got more out of the story in its 88-minute running time, and they had eight songs to work around. Here, some scenes dragged on or didn’t establish much characterization, like a battle against the Hittites in the beginning. Other scenes were rushed and didn’t allow time for this large story to breathe, like developing Moses’ relationship with his wife, Zipporah. An unfocused screenplay by too many writers kept this movie from being either the two-hour character study or the three-hour Biblical epic it should have been.

However, it is really pretty. Director Ridley Scott has made some of the most impressive visual movies of the past 50 years. “Blade Runner,” “Alien” and “Gladiator” are just some of them, and this movie comes very close to them all in cinematography, production design, editing and visual effects.

Something the animated movie or Cecil B. DeMille’s 1957 movie couldn’t capture is the scale of ancient Egypt, though “Prince of Egypt” comes close. With recent technological advancements, the scope of the movie is huge, as it should be. I fully believe it is ancient Memphis and 1 million people live there. When Moses and the 400,000 Hebrews are walking across the desert, I see 400,000 people in ancient Egypt and every shot of them is gorgeous.

There’s been a lot of talk about the white actors portraying the Egyptians and Hebrews. In the time of the Hollywood studio system, white actors portraying most any race was the norm, but we’ve come a long way from that. Just because this type of movie harkens back to those types of pictures doesn’t mean the prejudice casting has to as well. There are plenty of great actors whose families come from Egypt and Israel.

With that said, I can understand where Ridley Scott and the studio are coming from. This was a $140 million special-effects-filled epic in 3D. They want to make that money back. Everyone knows Christian Bale and more people are more likely to see this movie if they know the people in it. It doesn’t necessarily make it right, but it’s a valid reason.

How is Christian Bale as Moses anyway? He’s really good. You can see the pain Moses has to go through talking with God. God, by the way, is portrayed by a 10-year-old boy, which is a brilliant concept that no one would expect.

One thing other versions of the story failed to do was show how hard it was for God and Moses to revolt against Egypt and kill thousands of people. Moses questions his faith a lot and is prepared to say no to God at any time. The pain and frustration these two had to go through with each other is shown honestly and brutally.

The highlight of the movie has to be the Plagues of Egypt. Every element of the movie came together and produced one of the best pieces of filmmaking I’ve seen all year. As a kid, I always thought God was just throwing random plagues at the Egyptians with no logical reasoning, but the movie shows how it logically could have and probably did happen. The pacing allows the horror of the plagues to grow and really shock you. The attention to detail put into showing just how disgusting and terrifying millions of frogs and flies and locusts would have been.

Unfortunately, that’s the biggest highlight—not the Red Sea. It is spectacular and big, but the huge scale and CGI heavy scenes that have been building throughout peaks with the plagues, making the Red Seas scenes more of the same and kind of a letdown.

But that’s no reason not to see “Exodus” because it is so visually captivating and the actors are so good in their roles. The story could have been tighter and flowed better, more actors of Egyptian and Israeli descent could have been cast and the movie could have gone all the way to match the grand epics of Hollywood’s Golden Age.

If that doesn’t convince you, just see it for Christian Bale’s epic beard.

“Mickey’s Christmas Carol” (1983)

This half-hour animated feature is a short-and-sweet retelling of the Dickens’ classic with classic Disney characters. Scrooge is a grumpy and selfish old miser who, with the help of three ghosts, learns the true meaning of Christmas and changes his ways to be the most generous man in all of Victorian London.

The casting for this telling is perfect. Scrooge McDuck as Scrooge is obvious and great, but Mickey as Bob Cratchit is wonderfully endearing and Donald Duck as Scrooge’s Nephew Fred is fun and heartwarming. The three ghosts are Jiminy Cricket as past, Willie the giant as present, and Pete as future, all of whom fit the characters perfectly. And Goofy is great as Jacob Marley, especially since the Marley scenes are always a bit goofy.

Although it is short, the special still gets a lot out of its source material. Not all the scenes from past, present, and future are included, but the ones that are included are important and best tell the story.

It also isn’t afraid to go dark and serious and scary, especially for Disney. This may be one of the only times we see Mickey Mouse cry. He’s always so hopeful and cheerful, but Tiny Tim’s death really packs a punch just from seeing a speechless Mickey crying. It also has some terrifying imagery of Scrooge falling into hell in his grave. I remember seeing this a kid and being really scared.

But for all the scary imagery, there’s a lot of beautiful imagery too. This has some of the best backgrounds in any drawn Disney production I’ve seen. The detail in every frame makes a believable environment and you can tell they put a lot of work into it, even for 26 minutes.

If you’re not sure you like the Dickens’ classic or if the longer, older adaptations are too much during this busy time of year, give this special a try. It’s short but gets in all the emotion and essential plot points to give a great telling. It’s classic Disney throughout.