THE HOBBIT: AN UNEXPECTED JOURNEY Review

Let's first address the technology Peter Jackson decided to put forth with the first entry in his highly-anticipated "Lord of the Rings" sequel, "The Hobbit," originally two films but now three. The 48 frames per second, or 48 fps, or high frame rate, or HFR, or however you want to go about defining it, the fact is this: it's neither eye-gougingly awful or a feast for the eyes, which then brings up my very first question: why all the controversy surrounding it? I will say, though, in the film's first minutes, there are noticeable speed ups, and interactions between actors have a weird soap opera effect. Action sequences either look fake or like something out of a video game. But once you get settled in with the new technology, and the bizarre quirks become less glaring, it might actually begin to grow on you in its bold clarity and ultra high definition look. (It did for me.) I recommend going all the way and trying your luck with 48 fps; it is, after all, how the filmmaker intended it to be seen by audiences, and it's never been done before.

The first chapter in this new trilogy, "An Unexpected Journey" starts at a slog. We begin with Old Bilbo recounting his journey, yet again, to Frodo (Elijah Wood), and for one fleeting moment you may think you're watching "Fellowship of the Ring" again. But no, this is only exposition to set up the tale, followed by more exposition to set up the plight of the dwarves lead by Dwarf Lord Thorin (Richard Armitage). And then further down the line, there's more exposition. Recall the multiple endings of "The Return of the King," but just think of "The Hobbit" as having multiple beginnings...and about just two endings. It's long, very long, but only in the tradition of J.R.R. Tolkien adaptations; that is, only what Jackson as a filmmaker knows to bring us. It gives this return to Middle-earth a welcoming, comforting and familial feeling.

And who can shy away a smile from the return of Ian McKellen's Gandalf the Grey? He embarks a now much younger Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman, who fits the role like a glove) on this thirteen-dwarf adventure to help re-claim their lost kingdom of Erebor. The early portion of this journey feels much lighter, more frivolous than any portion of any "Lord of the Rings" film, which has a dampening effect. It makes this seemingly harrowing adventure too fun, not treacherous and dire. It isn't until Gandalf makes waves at the Elvan palace where the glimmering Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett reside that the importance of the quest really makes it's mark; in that this group's actions alone set in motion the whole One Ring to Rule Them All ruckus of the successors.

After this visit, the film is alight with glorious action set pieces full of trolls, orcs and goblins -- and it all pops and glistens behind your 3D glasses and at an upped frame rate. Also aiding the film to the finish line is the inspired interaction between Bilbo and fan-favorite Gollum, played once again by the remarkable physical actor Andy Serkis covered in motion-capture and CGI. While "The Hobbit" by no means holds the grandiose themes and heavy emotional power of Jackson's Oscar-loaded Middle-earth masterpiece, whoever said it had to? What's amazing enough is that with thirteen dwarves, you actually begin to feel for them, and you might even get a lump in your throat by the film's final minutes (three hours later).

This project had a whole lot going against it, and I think that's the reason critics have been so harsh in its reception. What became most unexpected for me was how good it really turned out to be and, my, how gratifying. It's a fine addition to a beloved franchise I don't mind donating another six hours to with two more likely three-hour-long installments down the road. Bring on "The Desolation of Smaug," I say.

CLOUD ATLAS Review

"Cloud Atlas" is inherently polarizing in its very nature. Either you get swept up in its soaring, outlandish vision, or you don't. It's a film easy to dismiss but equally as easy to get caught up in its undeniable power and ambition. From Andy and Lana Wachowski (who arguably haven't made a decent movie since "The Matrix" and maybe "The Matrix Reloaded") and Tom Tykwer, behind the one-hit wonder "Run Lola Run," these three set out to make the epic, visionary mind-bender of the year. And to their credit, they've done exactly that.

The movie is based on the seemingly impossible to adapt 2004 novel from David Mitchell, which tells six different stories spanning between the mid-19th century and well beyond the year 2144. The movie adaptation casts the same group of actors playing different characters within each story. The main players are Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugo Weaving, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw and Jim Broadbent who all, in some cases, are not even recognizable in the role they play. Supporting them are Hugh Grant and Susan Surandon. Sometimes the actors are the centerpiece of their story, other times they're a background figure. Each story opens with a larger exposition to give some context, each serving as their own single vignette. Once introduced, however, they weave together cutting back and forth between each other with a very specific rhythm.

The success in the storytelling comes from the way the six stories, and the main roles within, work together as they spill over and ripple through the narratives. I can't imagine the road map the Wachowskis and Tykwer must've created to pull this off. Now, I could go into detail about the premise of each timeline, but it would be an effort in vain. The point is the complex tapestry of feelings that is ultimately created, how particular themes so clearly resonates freely into the next frame. The filmmakers definitely touch on something political -- big oil destroying a nation -- but I won't get into that here. Themes of freedom, justice, liberation, truth, love, loss, good and evil all perfectly sync up in the thematic telling of each story, and it has a wondrous effect. We're never set on a character for long, but in the way certain roles represent others in a different timeline, similar emotions carry over. An escape, a romantic interest, a painful death -- there's always a link. Repeated passages, phrases and one similarly-shaped birth mark command repeated viewings to follow what I can only assume are endless correlations between the six stories.

If this all seems very general, that's because it is. "Cloud Atlas" works at its best when looking at the bigger picture. It's in the details where the movie starts to fall apart. The portrayals are caricature, cartoonish even, but there's no lack in color and texture. For example, the 2144 storyline takes place in Seoul, Korea and forces actors to wear makeup making them appear more Asian. (Except for stoic and stunning Korean actress Doona Bae.) It's a weird effect, especially Jim Sturgess' use of an accent. The other future storyline has Tom Hanks and Halle Berry speaking in a strange, broken language that's nearly laughable -- not to mention almost impossible to understand. But again, those are the nit-picky details. When watching "Cloud Atlas," an overall feeling emerges, a grandiose idea of the recurring moralities of human nature, no matter when or where, or what lifetime -- history repeats itself. I urge you to see it. It's certainly not for everyone, but it also very well might be just for you.