A Comparison Between LOTR and The Hobbit

      The third installment in The Hobbit trilogy has just been released and after seeing it I'd thought I make the ultimate comparison between the two trilogies. Initially I think it would be ideal to state that the LOTR trilogy are my favorite films of all time and have had a profound effect on my childhood. So when The Hobbit was announced I couldn't contain my excitement, and also the fact that Peter Jackson would be returning made it all the more better. But looking back on The Hobbit trilogy after watching the third I have to say, I've been disappointed.
      I think it primarily comes down to expectation for both of the trilogies. When the LOTR was announced a lot of people didn't think it could be done and Peter Jackson at this point wasn't a globally established director so people weren't expecting the films to have the success they did. The Hobbit however had the complete contrast. The Hobbit had ridiculous amounts of expectation hanging over it whether it could be helped or not so that's why it probably didn't seem as good as we'd hoped because we expected too much, me included. However there are some other significant factors specifically that make LOTR so much better than The Hobbit, commercial success and expectation aside.
      One comparison generally that I find really important is the contrast of look from LOTR and The Hobbit. One reason I love LOTR is the gritty realistic feel it has to it and you can really sense New Zealand in the shots and can tell its real. However in The Hobbit everything has a glow to it and sometimes you can't tell where New Zealand ends and CGI begins.It's really obvious when something is on location however so when there is CGI environments they just don't hold up. The loss of the realism surprised me when I went to see the first Hobbit but a let it slide due to excitement.
      I think something a lot of people have been talking about is the presence of comedy within The Hobbit and how everything seems to take on some form of joke or gag. For example in the final Hobbit film, Billy Connolly's character headbutts people and makes an attempt at a humorous speech towards the elves which wouldn't have been present in LOTR. The comedy in LOTR is much more subtle and when there's jokes it feels like something those characters would say in that situation with whatever scenario. In LOTR everyone is serious in war and everyone fights properly without the addition of gags. The best example of LOTR humor would be when Legolas says to Gimli at Helms Deep "Would you like me to describe it to you, or would you like me to find you a box?", this a perfect example of how the humor should have been done.
      Another hot topic of conversation would be the fact that LOTR was a trilogy of films and books so it made sense. But The Hobbit was split into three films from one book and still had plot holes and added characters and parts. It annoyed me that they put in Legolas even though he isn't in the book, I haven't read the book but that's what I hear. I'm not that desperate to see old characters revived, I'd rather learn about new characters in the Middle Earth world.
      I think I could spend this whole paragraph simply talking about the battle in the third film and its chaotic feel. There was so much convenience, pointless comedy and bits that just made you say "For God Sake!". Anyone who's seen the film would agree that when the Yak/Goat things came in we all were like "Where did they come from and how can they climb cliffs that steep?". I could keep up with who was fighting for who but I have to admit it was all over the place. LOTR was so simple, Orcs attack a city of men, what more do you want. We waited two films for a war and thats what we got. Legolas defying gravity on rocks.
      Finally I think I should address the endings of LOTR and The Hobbit. A lot of people say that LOTR has too many endings, one person being Jack Nicholson but at least it ties up all the endings happily (Makes me shed a tear). The Hobbit ending however was just not satisfying for a 2 hr 30 min movie. I wanted to see what happened to the dwarves, Thranduil and others.
      Overall I The Hobbit for the reasons above just isn't as good as LOTR, I wonder if Guillermo Del Toro directed it he would have made it better but I suppose they all had a shared vision and he co-wrote it. I think I always knew it would never be as good as LOTR but I'm just disappointed that Peter Jackson didn't give Middle Earth the same tone as before, you know, the one that won 11 Oscars.

Frankenstein (1931)

      

I have finally got the first three movies of the Universal horror cycle that started the whole craze off. Frankenstein completed my collection, with the other two being The Mummy and Dracula. I think this film has the biggest reputation and is the one people most people associate with. I have to say, it wasn't really what I expected but I mean this positively, I thought it was going to be quite cheesy and stereotypical. But it contains really heavy morals and there's scenes where it completely shocks you. There is no taking sides either, you're on the side of the monster and the people at the same time.
      I will quickly summarise the movie for those who are unaware of it. It is basically an adaptation of Mary Shelley's novel, "Frankenstein". I'm not sure how true it stays to the book but it basically follows a scientist battling his creation. Henry Frankenstein, played by Colin Clive is due to be married to Elizabeth, but his work takes over his life and he locks himself in an abandoned watchtower assisted by Fritz, played by Dwight Frye who also played Renfield in Dracula. Frankenstein's work succeeds and he successfully gives birth to a monster he created using stitched body parts but the monster is uncontrollable. His friends and co-workers make Frankenstein see reason and returns to marry Elizabeth, but this is postponed as the monster escapes and reeks havoc among the town leaving a destructive path behind him, it ultimately ends with Frankenstein losing his creation in a terrifying fate.
      I think the acting in this movie is phenomenal, Colin Clive's depiction of Frankenstein stood out for me especially. He had to play two alternate versions of a character, one crazy and one sane, both highly believable and capturing. Also, when he's sane, he's one cool ass dude. Dwight Frye once again in a Universal horror movie had to play someone abnormal and he does it well but the fate of his character isn't of similar positivity. But I think the main reason people watch this movie is because of Boris Karloff's depiction of the monster, actually I think it's fair to say that he doesn't play the monster, he is the monster. He plays a monster that we feel sympathy for and is very childlike, his colossal statuary and presence completely engulfs you in the movie, you are excited for every second of his screen time. It makes me wonder, Bela Lugosi turned down the role of the monster, what would it have been like?
      I love the set design in this movie, the laboratory in which the monster is created is what you expect, all the bells and whistles are there, weird electrical devices and such. The town setting looks like a place I'd like to live, seriously, the architecture is awesome and everyone just looks happy. The makeup on the monster by Jack Pierce is amazing with all the stitch marks and bolts in the neck, it looks like it was made by a mad man. I think it will go down in movie history as one of the most recognizable faces. All in all, I would recommend the film to anyone who likes monsters, old movies, classics, Boris Karloff, horror, you get the picture. Its only 1 hr 7 mins.

Ranking Harry Potter Films

      I once again took it upon myself to rank a series of films that are almost impossible to rank and I know for a fact that I've got it wrong but I had to settle somewhere, I was tired of just staring at my computer screen. The Harry Potter series of films are so embedded in my childhood, it's not even funny. It was weird when the series ended because all I'd known till I was 14 that a new Harry Potter film was always there to look forward to, now I cry myself to sleep every night, despite the fact that they're making spin-off films in the same universe. Anyway, I ranked these films like I did the Quentin Tarantino ones by rewatchability and first impressions. I ended up juggling a few of them around several times to end up with this list, I will admit that the Deathly Hallows films are not necessarily the best but by what I'm ranking them as, they are to me. Well I hope that you agree with me in some way although I'm sure you wont.

1. Deathly Hallows Part 2


2. Deathly Hallows Part 1


3. Chamber Of Secrets



4. Prisoner Of Azkaban


5. Goblet Of Fire


6. Sorcerer's Stone


7. Half Blood Prince


8. Order Of The Phoenix

Metropolis and German Expressionism

     

      I watched the classic 1927 film Metropolis for the second time yesterday on my DVD copy. It had a much larger impact on me the second time I watched it than the first, I don't know why, but it lead me to research it a bit and I found at some interesting stuff surrounding the film and what followed for the key individuals involved. Now I should state that the version I have is the 1984 restored, a lot of the film was deemed lost forever until the music producer Giorgio Moroder conducted a search to piece together missing elements of the film into a worthwhile picture, he did this and synced the film with music from the biggest stars of the 80's. Some of the music doesn't fit to well but it doesn't have too much of an impact. This version of the film was re-released by Kino I believe in the late 2000's in a nice tin to newer audiences. There are other versions available, another restored version in 2002 and 2010 further discovering the film's lost pieces.
      I'll quickly summarise the film's plot and give a short review. The film surrounds the separation between the workers in the depths who keep the city above, Metropolis, working for its inhabitants. When Maria, a religious preacher played by Brigitte Helm, prophesies a savior to come forth and save the workers, the master of Metropolis tries to prevent this using the mad scientist Rotwang and his latest creation. But the masters son Freder played by Gustav Frolich falls in love with Maria and tries to fight for the workers and has to cross his father to do so. The tale ends in destruction but ultimately, resurrection. For me the film could be made today for modern audiences and it would still portray relevant morals and gain a wide audience. The set design is amazing, the story is suspenseful and captures you completely. It's worth every penny they spent on it ($200million!) and every penny you spend on buying it. The acting is phenomenal and there is so many classic moments it's hard to count. A must see for any movie enthusiast.
      This film was made during the German expressionist era. This was a time when the German's were excelling in the film industry, it wasn't until the war and the rise of the Nazi's when German directors emigrated to Hollywood to show-off there new found style which they'd already be carrying out for over a decade. Other films in this era apart from Metropolis would be The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920) and Nosferatu (1922) which showcase the German expressionist style. At the time of the early expressionist films Germany was under economic struggle due to the events post World War I. This lead to low budget film making where sets were geometrically out of place and where painting on walls was the source of everything like shadows and lights.
      On to Metropolis, some interesting pieces of trivia would be that the film had one of the highest extra counts in history with 37,000 and the film took a year and half to shoot due to Fritz Lang's demand for numerous re-takes. It was also supposedly one of Adolf Hitler's favorite films. In fact, Joseph Goebbels offered Fritz Lang the job of being head of the studio UFA (Which was almost sent into bankruptcy on the production of Metropolis), Lang left for Paris the very same night. However, his wife Thea von Harbou, the writer of Metropolis stayed in Germany because she was was a supporter of the Nazi regime. Brigitte Helm left for Switzerland in 1935 and left the film industry behind, she didn't grant any interviews regarding her film career. She was even offered the title role in Bride of Frankenstein (1935) but Elsa Lanchester was cast instead. All in all, Metropolis is one of the most groundbreaking films in history matched by the unique style of the German expressionists. 

A Comparison Between The Mummy 1932 & 1999

      From the outset I can state that these films are completely different in approach to the story. The 1932 version is very minimal and driven by the Mummy's story where as the 1999 version is more action packed and focused on the relationship between the male and female leads, at least, that's what I got from it. They are both made by Universal so it was clear that they wanted to revive the series for a modern audience despite the 1932 version's profound reputation. I think the 1999 version has a lot more re-watch factor compared to the 1932 version due to its action sequences and comedic element. But the 1932 version portrays a better story and is more character driven, especially toward Imhotep. Undoubtedly, Boris Karloff is one of the main reasons you watch the film, for his subtle and commanding presence, much like Lugosi in Dracula. However, Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz play there parts well and they portray an intriguing evolving relationship. My favorite however would have to be John Hannah though, his touch of comedy to the film makes it more entertaining and ties together the dialogue. Altogether, if you want to watch a classic horror film starring one of the greatest of all time, Karloff then watch the 1932 version, it only runs for an hour. But if you want and action packed, Hollywood driven adventure then watch the 1999 version. I imagine most people have seen the 1999 version so make sure you see the 1932 original.

Dracula (1931)

      I've had a goal for a while now to watch the three original Universal horror movies from the early 30's. I've acquired The Mummy (1932) and Dracula (1931) and now all I need is Frankenstein (1931) to complete my collection. Following this I hope to acquire more classic horror films from the 40's which many say is the Golden Age. Anyway, I watched Dracula today so I'm going to give my opinion on it.

      Everyone knows the name Dracula and his home of Transylvania so it was only a matter of time before an adaptation of Bram Stoker's book was going to be made. However, there was a German silent expressionist adaptation of the novel in 1922 with the release of Nosferatu where they changed the name from Count Dracula to Count Orlok, unauthorized adaptation I might add. This aside, I think people mark this film as the beginning of an endless cycle of Dracula films. Other notable mentions include Christopher Lee taking on the role, with Peter Cushing tackling Van Helsing, this would be seen in Hammer's series of horror pictures in the 50's, Lee would play the role in 6 films.

      When I heard the Swan Lake theme come on at the beginning it sunk in that I was watching one of the most iconic horror films of all time. I think its status is purely reliant on Bela Lugosi's portrayal of Bram Stoker's Dracula, which is so commanding and menacing but subtle at the same time. His weird hand positions and facial expressions completely suck you in, no pun intended. However, I'm not writing this review to just tell you how amazing Lugosi is but rather to show the bigger picture.

      The plot of the film very much sticks to the novel I believe, I haven't read the book so don't take me up on that. It's very much about Dracula's pursuit of a woman, Mina played by Helen Chandler, and his attempts to convert her to a vampire herself. Whilst this goes on, Van Helsing played by Edward Van Sloan tries to uncover Dracula and defeat him using the traditional methods. There is never a boring a moment as something is always happening affecting the path of the story. 

      One performance to me that stuck out just as much as Lugosi's was Dwight Frye's portrayal of Renfield. When it jump cuts after Dracula attacks him to when we see him transformed to bug crazy slave it shocked me, two such contrasting characters made it hard for me to realise that it was the same person we saw at the start. I think Frye deserves as much recognition as Lugosi in my opinion.

      Now I have one little thing that bugged me, David Manners in the role of John Harker was pretty much annoying in every scene he was in. All he does is shout and say Mina's name and you just want to tell him to shut up. But apart from that it's excellent.

      Overall this film is a classic, in the horror genre and in general. I think it's a must see for anyone who enjoys old movies like me. All I need to do now is to get my hands on Frankenstein and my collection will be complete.

      

      

300: Rise of an Empire

I thought I would start doing short reviews of trailers as well as film reviews because for me they set my mentality when going into a film, I talked about this in my Dawn review. Anyway, I picked this trailer because it's just awesome, though the film was a bit disappointing this trailer is one of the best I've ever seen. It's amazing for a few reasons, one would have to be Black Sabbath music synced with visuals, whenever a drum beat is matched with killing or an action it gets me every time. Another would have to be that Eva Green's image is always being pushed, it does help that she's my celebrity crush but I swear it doesn't effect my feelings on the trailer, much. Finally, what made these films special for me is the style. Sometimes I don't like the glorification in films but the way it mixes in with the fighting style is just awesome and this trailer really pushes that image.