I have done several things worth mentioning over break thus far: first and foremost, I've caught up on my sleep. Second of all, I finished my final college applications. Fourteen schools, twenty-something essays, and quite a few hours of my life, and it's done! Now the waiting game begins. And I've spent some of those waiting hours at the movie theater, which is out-of-character for me. Movie theaters make me nervous for some reason. That aside, I've seen two films over the break: the third installment in Peter Jackson's Tolkien-inspired The Hobbit trilogy, and a Mark Wahlberg flick called The Gambler. And, though this goes without saying, spoiler alert.
First of all, I need to discuss The Hobbit. Those of you who have read my blog in the past know that I'm a huge Tolkien fan. And if you think the Harry Potter series is better than Tolkien's work, then this is my reply: you're entitled to your own (completely and totally wrong) opinion. Virtually every character and plot device in Harry Potter is a cheap Tolkien ripoff in one way or another, from the main protagonists to the various monsters to the strong female lead to the concept of Horcruxes...but I'm getting sidetracked. And don't rush to assumptions from my harsh words. I love Harry Potter - it was an enormous part of my childhood. But comparing it to The Lord of the Rings is like comparing LBJ to Lincoln. That aside, Peter Jackson's interpretation of The Lord of the Rings is, without a doubt, among the best film adaptations of a work of literature the world has ever seen. And as such, it's impossible to watch The Hobbit without comparing it to Jackson's previous trilogy. For the film adaptation of a book, it does an excellent job. But it pales in comparison to The Lord of the Rings. Part of that is hardly Jackson's fault - the studio initially signed him for a trilogy that started with The Hobbit (Tolkien wrote The Hobbit decades before he wrote The Lord of the Rings), but things changed and only LOTR was produced. When Jackson went back to produce The Hobbit, he had no choice but to do so as a prequel trilogy. You really can't blame him for deviating much more from the book in The Hobbit. And his interpretation of the events that happened while the book of The Hobbit takes place is spot-on. Gandalf's imprisonment and the confrontation with Sauron in Dol Guldur are heavily implied to have taken place by the grey wizard's lengthy tales in the early chapters of The Fellowship of the Ring. Anyhow, let's talk about the film itself...it was okay. It definitely deviates from the book, but it was all right. The performances weren't forced in the least. Sir Ian McKellen was excellent, of course, as Gandalf. Martin Freeman wasn't too shabby himself, in the big hairy shoes of Bilbo Baggins. And Richard Armitage captured the madness and redemption of Thorin Oakenshield - again, things that were implied in Tolkien's universe - perfectly. I expected the film to be one continuous battle sequence, but it wasn't. The Battle of the Five Armies didn't actually start for the first hour and a half of the film. Jackson spent a great deal of time developing the characters and underlining the sources of tension between the different factions. It was, all in all, a decent flick. I'd recommend it to all my fellow Tolkien fans.
Now for The Gambler. I wasn't expecting much out of this film. Mark Wahlberg hasn't been the best actor in the past. Heck, he hasn't even been a good actor in some films. But I was pleasantly surprised here. The film follows a literature professor (Wahlberg) who owes several hundred thousand dollars to a crime lord, thanks to his gambling addiction. The story is a very human one that perfectly captures the essence of addiction. Wahlberg's character gets a sort of a high off his gambling victories and pushes his limits accordingly, which lands him in debt. When he bets everything he has on a roulette game at the climax of the film, in the hopes that he'll win and come away with enough money to pay back the crime bosses he's in debt to, the strain and panic within the character is tangible. And even though (spoiler alert) he wins the bet, I was expecting him to lose. That's my favorite thing about the film. It shows the entropy of this man's life - how random everything is in his line of "work." And I say "this man" because as the film goes on, you start to forget that it's Mark Wahlberg up on the screen. This is, without a doubt, the best acting I've ever seen Wahlberg do. The side characters are excellent as well. John Goodman is excellent as one of the crime lords Wahlberg's character is indebted to. He's anything but typecast in this film - the jolly, somewhat nervous character he usually plays is gone, replaced by a cold, calculating, often cruel man. There weren't very many big names in the film, aside from Wahlberg and Goodman. And personally, I feel that this choice really helped the film. The characters were genuine and very human. Even the worst of the characters had redeeming qualities or moments, and that made the film what it was. It was a good movie - nothing exceptional, but certainly not a bad film.
There are still a few films left on my wish list. I definitely want to catch Unbroken before the conclusion of break. I have the book, but I've never had the time to read it. And beyond that, I'm waiting for American Sniper to be released across the nation come January. I've heard nothing but positive reviews for the film, which is what I've come to expect from Clint Eastwood. We'll just have to wait and see for ourselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment