The Imitation Game Does Its Service

I liked The Imitation Game. It was good enough. With a subject like Alan Turing, one could easily have fallen down any number of rabbit holes. But I felt like these guys figured out how to walk that thin line and managed to cover everything they could, really give it all its' due.

The Imitation Game is the true story of how Alan Turing created the first computer, helped bring an early end to the second world war, and still managed to alienate the entire British legal system in the process. Given that it was, until very recently, kept top secret, I don't think I have to say "this isn't an easy story to tell."

Morten Tyldum (director) managed to pull a lot of positives out of a cast that was almost too big for its' own good. Often I find somebody will drop the ball when there are too many names in one picture, yet I felt almost everyone held up their own end rather nicely. Benedict Cumberbatch, who seems to be in just about everything these days, gives an excellent performance as Turing. This is another strange character for him... the kind he usually excels at. An incredible mind that has difficulty using the body its in... has difficulty understanding other people... or perhaps is just to busy with THE IDEA to let other people in or succumb to society's expectations. Turing's an amazing character, and Cumberbatch does him justice. Keira Knightley does a fine job as Joan Clarke as well... though I hate to be the guy who says she's too model-esque for the part. Regardless, she makes herself believable in the role. Matthew Goode and Allen Leech were also great casting choices. Though I did feel a little taken out of the movie by Charles Dance's performance. He just felt too "larger than life" for what this production was.

The science of it all gets a pretty good breakdown, which I enjoyed. Most movies of this variety try desperately to get around having to explain the science in lieu of social interaction, but The Imitation Game doesn't pull that punch. The computer is cool to look at, and the codes aspect is kind of fun. And let's not ignore that wonderful score by Alexandre Desplat! It's so refreshing to hear a score I can actually hum... (looking at you Interstellar).

But for all its' positives, I can't help but feel I won't be talking about this movie a year from today... it won't even be on my mind. Certainly, the story it manages to tell will stick around... Alan Turing is a name to remember, and the history of computers I'm sure will be more greatly delved into in the coming years. The film itself just doesn't feel like it's all that memorable. It does its service to an incredible mind... but then just sort of fades away.

SMAUG!!!!!

Yes, I saw The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

I actually saw it twice. Once in H(igh)F(rame)R(ate) 3D and once in standard. So what's to be gained from the double viewing? You mean aside from totally awesome reemersion into the world of Middle Earth? Well I recognize now that HFR is an interesting experiment that other techniques and technologies are not quite ready for. The CG looks good for the most part, but falls apart when a real person is set in closeup on a backdrop of digital fiction. The CG characters look great in real situations... but that river of gold looked awful in both formats. It surprised me actually, how many times I noticed the CG this time around. How rushed some of it felt. Because the first Hobbit film looked great from start to finish.

Which leads me to my next statement... and it may not be shared by many... I liked An Unexpected Journey more than The Desolation of Smaug. When they decided to break this one up into another two films I think the pacing went to shit. That's not to say it wasn't incredibly entertaining and nearly everything I hoped to see from this part of the story... but Beorn felt rushed, the elves of Mirkwood felt drawn out and overanalyzed, and the orcs seemed utterly useless throughout. Yet, once we reach Laketown and from there discover Smaug, things really pick up (with the exception of that river of gold).

So let's talk about the dialogue. This script and its predecessor have both been littered with sloppy dialogue issues. They even repeated my least favorite line from the first one... but it seems they realized how awkward and repetitive it already was so they cut out a small piece of it. I'm talking about that Galadriel line... you know the one "Something lingers in the shadows, hidden from sight, it will not show itself." or something like that. It's just an example of how over-the-top some of their writing goes.

But then, I'm being nitpicky about... well... the greatest fantasy film series of all time. So take all of this with a grain of salt.

Essentially, Peter Jackson is a genius just to have managed to bring life to Middle Earth on film in the first place. But beyond that, he continues to create works of quality. The casting is almost always superb and the effects are almost always on the money. Though I do wish they would have kept a few more of the practical images they eventually CGed over in these most recent films.

Martin Freeman is impeccably well cast as Bilbo. He brings such life to the character and fills his performance with an excellent variation of nuance and emotion. One only wishes, as the lead of these films, that he would get more screen time.

Richard Armitage, on the other hand, tends to miss the mark for me. And he does this mostly by trying too hard to hit his marks on set. By this I mean, I can see him trying to act in every other scene... it particularly stands out in the opening sequence. Ian McKellen gives his strangest Gandalf performance to date in this one, but I find myself still getting behind all of his choices here. This is a different side of Gandalf... a Gandalf that is less certain of the fate of the world and in many ways a less serious Gandalf. Something I appreciate seeing in practice. Beyond that, I love that James Nesbitt is in these films. If you ever got a chance to see Jekyll, you'd recognize how much fun he has performing and he never seems to hold anything back. The addition of Orlando Bloom was awkward to me. Sure it makes sense that he would be there. After all it is his home and given the life cycle of elves he would most definitely be alive and well at this point in the timeline. But it's Orlando Bloom... and he may be the worst actor in the franchise. That being said, his existence opened the doors for Evangeline Lilly to make a very interesting appearance with a new character. Tolkien didn't write too many females into his stories, so it is welcome in my mind to see Evangeline step in and add an extra element to the film. Her subplot is actually pretty interesting. Benedict Cumberbatch was a great choice for Smaug and the dragon honestly looked great all across the board.

Anyway, like the length of these films, I've probably gone on long enough. I love these movies, warts and all. And I can't wait until next year to finally see the battle of the five armies. Damn that'll be cool.

Why All The Fifth Estate Hate??

I finally saw The Fifth Estate.

And while walking in, I was confused. I had seen the trailer and loved it

but almost all of the critics seemed to be bashing it to pieces. So I sat in my seat alone. Didn't even invite friends because no one seemed interested. As the lights went down I instinctively knew which way I'd side.

The Fifth Estate is not a bad movie. Not by a long shot.

In fact, it has one of the most consistently good casts I've seen this year. From the quite excellent leads, Daniel Brühl and Benedict Cumberbatch, to the surprising (I didn't know they were in this movie) co-stars, Laura Linney and Stanley Tucci (???), to the incredibly sexy Alicia Vikander... I honestly can't recall a single bad performance.

Then there's the script. I don't believe there is nearly as much problem with the script as many of those oh so subtle reviewers seem to claim. At one point I recall one critic blasting it as being incompetently un-cinematic. And while there is an element of that (namely the computer sequences) and the script does a poor job tiptoeing around that (a la a metaphorically never ending office with only two employees) the majority of Assange and Berg's relationship seemed quite real to me.

Now I don't know the facts. I wasn't there. But neither was the rest of the media. So when Assange himself gets up and claims the movie to be utterly untrue, I have to wonder... Because the picture this film paints is one wherein both characters see the world the way they want to see it. And there's a succinct believability for me in that. I don't think it "demonizes Assange", nor do I think it claims that Berg is absolutely right. I think The Fifth Estate did a surprisingly good job of staying unbiased. And perhaps that's where the real hate comes from.

I tend to dislike films without "bias"... but when I say that I mean a film without a clear perspective. I think The Fifth Estate still had that and I'll disagree with anyone who claims it was lopsided until they can prove it to me.

One Quick Almost Spoiler
Anyway, there's a scene that I still cannot get out of my head. When Assange goes to Berg's parents' house for dinner, there is a moment that was so believable to me. And in that moment I sensed a better representation of a character's hidden perspective than I think I've ever seen on film. If you've read this blip and know what I am referring to I really want to talk to someone about it!!
End Almost Spoiler

The Fifth Estate... some say it's too smart... some say it's too stupid... and I'm just left here feeling like Goldilocks.