Film Fest - Finally - Oblivion and The Hobbit

There's been a dearth of film crit here lately... mostly because there have been few movies I wanted to see.  But here are the recent viewings:

Oblivion - An absolutely gorgeous film!  The visuals - production design, costumes, photography - are reason enough to see it.

The story?  Well, without Spoiling, there is one enormous logic hole: why do these invading aliens... No.  That would spoil it.  Rephrase: why is Tom Cruise alive?  An explanation is given in the film, but after a minute's consideration the viewer has to conclude, "Bunk."  Nonsense.  Okay, second hole.  Why (assuming Tom Cruise lives), why does his maintenance-man character get such deluxe digs? That gorgeous pool?

Every maintenance man lives like this.  Oblivion.

But the real flaw to the film, for me, the real Invasion, is not by scripted evil aliens, but by Hollywood Star Power.  Used for evil.

The Tom-Cruise-is-a-Star thing invades every aspect of what could have been an effective sci-fi film.  Cruise (barely his character) is built up in every possible way: he gets not one but two adoring and beautiful women who hang from his arm and his every word, lips trembling, tears glistening; before the end you see Cruise getting the obligatory adoring child too.  Of course he earns the respect of the doubting Rambo-style second-in-command cliche' and even of Morgan Freeman (who once played God, remember?).  Freeman's rebel leader calls Cruise "our best," our referring to the entire Earth, naturally.  The plan to save Earth that Freeman's character begins can, of course, only be completed by Our Hero Cruise through heroic self-sacrifice.  He's the Star.  Also, he's Such A Darn Hero that he actually performs a coupla miracles along the way: one, a small miracle of handymanhood with a stick of gum ('cause he's our all-American Joe at heart), the other in showing up for end credits.

And did I mention the women?  The attraction of Cruise's aw-shucks heroic sheer manliness is such that, in the most tasteful way, both women throw themselves at him.  The pool comes in handy.  Plus there is an I-kid-you-not actual crotch-shot of Cruise with a sleeping woman in the background.  I haven't seen such a HINT OF SEX since Captain Kirk put his boots back on.  So shameless and corny I had to choke on my popcorn in the theater.

But I'll watch Oblivion again on DVD for the gorgeous world created.  Plus, at home I can point and laugh.

Phew!  After that the story-telling and ensemble of The Hobbit make a refreshing change.  Loved watching this in the theater, loved  rewatching it on DVD.  I'll buy the expanded version that's due out in the fall.  But even if you're not a rabid Lord of the Rings fan, as I am, the film is old-fashioned in the right way - it builds a beautiful fictional world in which to tell a good story in an entertaining way.  Unencumbered by Star Power.

My earlier post on The Hobbit HERE.

US versions of UK stories

Why do we insist on translating English stuff for us American-English speakers?

Drives me nuts.

Or as a BBC Brit might say, "It drives one mad!"

Public domain image by Anne Pratt HERE

This "translating" happens all the time with books.  The title of the first Harry Potter book was changed from HP and the Philosopher's Stone to HP and the Sorcerer's Stone; presumably because we colonials weren't up on our alchemy.  Or one of my recent discoveries - really good urban fantasy / police proceedural novels - had the first in the series retitled from The Rivers of London (with intriguing cartographic style cover) to Midnight Riot (with suggesting-violence-but-downplaying-ethnicity cover).  The second book kept its UK title, Moon Over SOHO, but again switched an edgy for a cerebral cover.

A little insulting.

And the number of TV shows "reimagined" for the American Market is staggering.  The Office is one example.  Some rewrites work, many fail because something essential is lost in translation.

The latest straw for me yesterday was watching the US remake of Being Human, a terrific Brit vampire/werewolf/ghost flat-share dramedy (you know the trope, mismatched roommates a la The Odd Couple, but with more gore).

The UK version is terrific.  And I think perfectly cast.  The werewolf character, in what you might call "plain clothes," is wonderfully quirky in looks and behavior.  The ghost is charming and ditzy.  While the vampire, Michell, is a version of that rock-n-roll classic the edgy lead singer, all leather-jacketed swagger and sex appeal.  As a bonus, the guy is also funny/scary/puppy-dog-eyes on cue and has Irish Charm TM.

Whereas the US version...

I'm sure these are all good actors, but casting succumbed to that American tendency to pick Breck-Hair people.  The werewolf looks quirky... only to the extent of a bad haircut (or messy hair); in behavior, he's more whiny than endearingly odd.  The ghost seems bland too, but that may be just losing the accent.  As for the Homecoming King, er, vampire...  Contrast between US and UK versions couldn't be greater: the US actor must be six feet taller than the UK's; instead of dark curls and a mercurial face, he has Eagle Scout hair and a chin Mt. Rushmore can't match.  More heroic high school quarterback than transgressive rock star.  Prince Charming with an iron deficiency.  Fangs?  Probably caps.

That classic, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, starred vamps of exactly these two types in rock-star Spike and quarterbackish Angel, but the former was the secret good guy and the latter had the charming Irish accent and a wide swath of dark-side.

I much prefer the UK version of Being Human.   (Compare for yourself on Netflix.)

I guess the tipping point annoyance for me was realizing that the US vamp was given the name "Aidan" - which is the UK actor's.  (Aiden Turner, now playing one of the "boy band" dwarves in The Hobbit.)  As if the name alone would translate the charm:

O, be some other name!
What's in a name? that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet...

Or vice versa?  Or not.  

I do wish we'd stop "translating" English into American. Next it'll be Downton Abbey as Biltmore, all among them rural land-owning Vanderbilts or something.

BTW That verse is by Shakespeare.  You'd think us Americans would trust those Brits to write by now, wouldn't you?

Film Fest - The Hobbit

This is a film I've been waiting for...

Really, really enjoyed it!

But the reviews I've seen (the other reviews, you know, the professional reviews) are kind of strange. Most of them talk about how much money the film is making (tons, but who cares?) or about its new filming technology (more frames per minute, do I care?) or about its length (three hours or just-long-enough), but few are talking about the actual, you know, storytelling.

I approach this film as a loooong-time fan of J.R. R. Tolkien's work, as someone who read the Lord of the Rings every year at about this time of year for many years and read The Hobbit many times; heck!  I've read LotR out-loud twice.  I've watched the films oooooh... a couple times maybe.  (Cough, cough.)  Anyway, it's difficult for me to imagine meeting Middle Earth for the very first time by way of this Hobbit film.  Best guess?  I expect that for first-timers Peter Jackson's The Hobbit would be a fair intro: "fair" in that it has a beautifully rendered Middle Earth atmosphere and characters - casting and performances are great - and the story is well told, enriched by judicious borrowings from the appendixes of LotR which gives it a more adult tone than the book and helps to yoke it to the established film-world of its sequel.  I cannot imagine how anyone could do a better job of a Hobbit movie.  And Martin Freeman is perfect as Bilbo.

I still think having The Hobbit read aloud to you as a little kid has to be the very best introduction.  After that, I'd suggest, in due time, reading The Lord of the Rings silently to yourself.  Then see the films in order.

This may be the film that separates the sheep from the goats as far as the film audience goes.

Those who merely liked the Lord of the Rings films, or who loved them only for an appealing actor or for the cinematography or the battle scenes or something, but did not fall in love with Middle Earth itself... well, this Hobbit (while having charming actors) doesn't have the rising-star power of the first installment of LotR.  And The Hobbit, like the book it comes from, has a more episodic structure which - plus filling in of the background for the later Lord of the Rings films - makes this film slower paced.

Middle Earth fans will love this.  Casual movie-goers maybe not so much.

Personally?  I loved this movie and can't wait to see the next installments.  Or to see it again.

This great map of Middle Earth is public domain - courtesy of one wiki to rule them all

Favorite parts for me (Spoiler free) were seeing Hobbiton again; meeting Radigast the Brown; the dwarves' dinner party at Bag End; Bilbo's riddle game with Gollum; seeing Rivendell and Galadrial again; the ending...  Revisiting Middle Earth!

A highly detailed review HERE.