Big Hero 6 isn't just for kids

Everyone, by now, is familiar with the Pixar name and the high quality animated movies that studio produces, from the original Toy Story to WALL-E. Pixar has become known for the length of time they take to develop a story or nurture a script before even rendering a single pixel of information. They do have the occasional stumble (Cars 2), and are facing some backlash after announcing a fourth Toy Story movie, but for the most part they put out the best of the best in CG animated films.

Disney's CG animation arm has not been as successful, at least as far as critics are concerned. Most of their animated films are geared more towards the younger crowd … who will want all of the merchandise that goes along with the movie … and scripts usually are too juvenile for adults to bear. But, since Disney has folded Pixar into the company (complete with Pixar's John Lasseter heading up the animation unit), their CG films have grown up. Their Secret of the Wings was a pretty solid effort considering it was a direct-to-video film with limited theatrical release, and that also seemed to be a test run for the studios best (and most popular) CG animated film yet, Frozen. And now Disney has released a new CG animated film with the curious title of Big Hero 6.

Big Hero 6 tells the story of Hiro and his older brother Tadashi (who live in the mash-up city of San Fransokyo). Both are scientific geniuses, and while the older Tadashi has made something of himself, the teenaged Hiro spends time gambling in (illegal) robot fights. Knowing he can't stop Hiro from going, Tadashi offers to give him a ride to the next fight but ends up taking him to the institute he attends. A new world opens up before Hiro's eyes, and before long he is creating a new type of robot to present for consideration for admission into the institute.

The robots are a success, a "shady" businessman offers to buy them from Hiro but he is convinced it is better to accept the invitation to join the institute. After leaving the competition, the building bursts into flames, Tadashi runs in to save his professor, but an explosion spells the worst for anyone left inside the building. Depression takes over Hiro's life, but his brother's invention Baymax, a personal medical robot, Tadashi's friends and a mysterious supervillain who seems to have replicated Hiro's microbots give Hiro a new purpose in life – find out who stole his invention and killed his brother.

This really is some heady stuff for something that could be looked down upon as just a kids' movie. There certainly is more than enough colorful scenery and laugh-out-loud humor (courtesy of Baymax) for the kids, but the idea of death, revenge, retribution and sacrifice will keep adults heavily invested in the story and the characters. Tadashi's funeral scenes are very reminiscent of the wordless life story of the characters in Pixar's Up, and it will definitely leave you with some very moist eyes. Even though these characters are animated, you feel real human emotion from the "performances" that just tug on your heart.

Another scene near the end of the movie, the one involving selfless sacrifice, not only had tears rolling down my face but had the children behind me having complete emotional meltdowns. That certainly demonstrates the power of the characters to make you believe in them, and the power of the writing to fully engage you in those characters' fates. The only real weak link in the story is the villain, who comes out of nowhere and wears a kabuki mask for no other reason than associating it with the city in which they live. The final battle between Hiro and his friends (the Big Hero 6 of the title, a name they give themselves as they become real superheroes through science) is action-packed and made even more impressive with the stunning use of 3D.

Of course, the real star of the movie is Baymax, a big marshmallow of a robot that is designed to attend to anyone's medical needs, from a slight rash to emotional heartbreak. Baymax is designed to be non-threatening, hence the squishy inflatable look, kind of like a Christmas lawn decoration come to life, but he's equipped with everything one would need for medical assistance. To help fight the villain though, Hiro has to alter Baymax's programming to make him a badass fighting machine, which sometimes confuses the robot, but once Hiro pulls the disk containing the medical programming, Baymax changes into something morally questionable. It certainly is a bold move on the filmmakers' part to take what and who should be the film's good guys and turn them to the dark side, especially in a film with children as its main demographic. But by the end of the movie, you will be wanting your own Baymax.

For some reason, I find myself getting drowsy during CG animated films maybe because of the over-stimulation of the colors or the movement, or maybe even the 3D, but Big Hero 6 had me fully engaged for the entire running time. If you think cartoons are just for kids, then have your attitude readjusted by Big Hero 6. As an added bonus, the animated short Feast precedes the film, a story about the life of a cute pooch (and his owner) as they go from bachelorhood to romance and break-up, all told through the dog's eyes (and appetite). It's a charming film that has as much, if not more, heart packed into its short running time than most live action, feature length films can muster. Together, these films are a real treat for all ages.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the most comic booky comic book movie yet

There's been a lot of talk about what the movie of the summer will be. A few weeks ago, everyone seemed to be in agreement, for the most part, that that movie was Dawn of the Planet of the Apes. But it looks like Marvel Studios has hit another home run ... make that a Grand Slam with their latest offering, Guardians of the Galaxy.

The studio has certainly been cranking the hype machine for several months now trying to get audiences who only know Iron Man, Thor, Captain America and the rest of the Avengers familiar with this new group of characters from a comic that has many fervent fans, but that fan base is considerably smaller compared to those who are at least familiar with the characters who have already hit the big screen from the Marvel Universe.

Guardians of the Galaxy tells the story of Peter Quill (Chris Pratt), a human who had been abducted from earth as a child moments after his mother dies. The story moves from that moment to Peter as an adult, apparently some kind of treasure hunter working with a blue alien, Yondu (Michael Rooker), to retrieve an orb for a client. Quill gets the orb, but also finds himself captured and incarcerated after a fight for the orb with Gamora (Zoe Saldana) that draws the attention of Rocket (Bradley Cooper), a genetically engineered creature that looks like a racoon, and Groot (Vin Diesel), an ambulatory tree whose vocabulary consists of "I am Groot" (only Rocket seems to understand what he's really saying).

Needless to say, things escalate as the four escape prison (with another prisoner, Drax the Destroyer, played by Dave Bautista) and they learn what the orb contains -- an Infinity Stone -- and who wants it to potentially destroy the galaxy -- that would be Ronan (Lee Pace) who is supposed to deliver the orb to galactic villain Thanos (Josh Brolin).

Guardians of the Galaxy, as directed by James Gunn, is a visual feast. It is the most comic booky comic book movie that's come along in quite some time. It really is one of the most wildly colorful movies out there with a color wheel of aliens of all hues: blues, green, pink, just about any color in the crayon box. The film, for the most part, is also very bright with most of the major scenes taking place in full daylight. It's far from a depressing movie.

But all that light and color doesn't mean the movie is light and fluffy. Yes, the movie is very, very funny with a script full of one-liners fans will be sure to be quoting for the rest of the summer (one of my favories involves the words "pelvic sorcery"). But with all of the comedy and action, the film has a great big heart too. You'll laugh a lot and you'll cry (or get a little weepy) a couple of times too. It's this great balance of action, laughs and heart that makes the movie work so well.

The cast, of course, also gets as much credit as Gunn and his scriptwriters. Pratt, whom most people know as paunchy, lovable oaf Andy on Parks & Recreation, cuts a fine form as the film's hero. Most people know he can pull off the comedy, but he puts all of his heart into the role too and makes Quill a fully rounded character, even when he's being an "a-hole." Saldana kicks ass with the best of them, and Bautista is surprisingly good delivering his very funny dialog with dead-on earnestness.

But whodathunk the film's real breakout stars would be a talking racoon and a talking tree? The CGI artists have done some amazing work bringing them to life, but Cooper and Diesel have done outstanding work lending their voices to a couple of characters that could have ended up as the butt of the joke and brought the movie way, way down. But they both elevate their characters to the same level as their human counterparts, becoming just as integral to the story and just as heroic as Quill by the end.

There really isn't much more to say about Guardians of the Galaxy. It's definitely a movie that needs to be seen to be appreciated, and it needs to be seen on the biggest screen possible. After seeing the 17 minute IMAX preview, it was a bit of a letdown to see it on a regular screen but credit must be given to Gunn for really planning and composing each shot for 3D. This is a conversion, but it's one of the finest conversions I've seen. Thank you, James Gunn, for really using the format to its best advantage. If you've had any reservations about seeing Guardians of the Galaxy, put them aside now and make plans to see what is undoubtedly the most entertaining movie of the summer.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier changes everything

It's a pretty safe bet to say that since Marvel started making their own movies under their own banner (unlike Spider-Man, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Daredevil and … Ghost Rider), it's hard to say that there's been a stinker in the bunch … well, Iron Man 2 for me has been the worst of the bunch. So expectations are exceptionally high for the second outing for the First Avenger in Captain America: The Winter Soldier.

Whereas the first movie played out like a 1940s war movie with comic book overtones (in the guise of Red Skull himself and the super soldier program), The Winter Soldier has a nice 70s political thriller vibe to it. Think The Parallax View, Three Days of the Condor and even All the President's Men; and two of the three star Robert Redford who is not so coincidentally cast as S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Alexander Pierce, Nick Fury's right hand man. (And it seems that Three Days of the Condor is especially required viewing to further appreciate The Winter Soldier.)

The Winter Soldier is set some time after the events of The Avengers, but the battle that ravaged New York City is the jumping off point for the story as S.H.I.E.L.D. is preparing to launch a new global security system called Insight which, in a sort of Minority Report kind of way, scans every human on the planet, examines all of their personal data and then determines if they will eventually commit a crime with the end result being their elimination. Fury tries to convince Cap/Steve Rogers that this is the way the world is now and without this we don't have freedom. Cap comes back at him with a line sure to stir up some folks, “This isn't freedom, this is fear.”

But something causes Fury to ask Pierce to delay the launch of Insight and after an attempt is made on his life, he tells Rogers to trust no one … but why? That's pretty much all I'm willing to say about the plot because there are some major developments that completely destroy everything we know about S.H.I.E.L.D. (and if you've been watching ABC's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., the ramifications are going to significantly alter the series as well).

My expectations for Captain America: The Winter Soldier were very high, and I can confidently say that they were exceeded. I know some folks want more connection between the films, but I see these solo character movies as their own thing with threads to the other movies. The Winter Soldier does prominently feature Scarlett Johansson's Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, but there's no Hawkeye, Hulk or anyone else besides Fury. The film does introduce Anthony Mackie as Sam Wilson/The Falcon, Emily VanCamp's Agent 13 (who may eventually be named Sharon Carter if they follow the comics), Frank Grillo's Brock Rumlow (who may become Crossbones), while bringing back Sebastian Stan (the presumed dead Bucky Barnes), Hayley Atwell (Peggy Carter), Cobie Smulders (Maria Hill) and Maximiliano Hernández as Jasper Sitwell. Sitwell has appeared in Thor, The Avengers and Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and has a very pivotal role in the events which drive the movie. I'd love to know if this has been in the cards since he was introduced into the filmic Marvel Universe.

Since I can't say much about the plot, I will say that the film itself looks spectacular (and I can't judge the 3D version since the press screenings were only 2D this time around). Directors Anthony and Joe Russo have done a terrific job of grounding the story in reality while shooting on actual Washington, D.C. locations (and Maryland's own Fort Meade even gets a shout out). While I'm sure there are a ton of digital effects throughout the movie, they are virtually invisible, helping to sell the realness of the story. The story itself is pretty deep, a bit dark, very violent and not at all cartoony. I would actually hesitate to take small children to see this just because it is so realistic.

The performances are all terrific as well, but I would have liked to have seen just a little more character development for Pierce. I think his part in the story's events would have been even more surprising had we seen him in some of the previous Marvel movies. As it stands, though, Captain America: The Winter Soldier is now at the top of the Marvel movie heap for me. I loved the style and tone of Captain America: The First Avenger, but I enjoyed even more all of the plot twists and turns and the “where do we go from here?” feeling we're left with at the end. 

Of course, it wouldn't be a Marvel movie without a post-credits stinger, and we get two this time – one sets up The Avengers: Age of Ultron (introducing “the twins”) and the other all the way at the end of the credits maybe setting up the future of Captain America himself. And do take note: if you are a viewer of Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., do not watch any more episodes until you see the movie! You have been warned.

My 2014 Oscar predictions

It's Oscar night, so I just wanted to make a quick list of all the awards I'm predicting (or guessing, since who has seen any of the documentary and animated short subjects?! Okay, I did see Get a Horse because it was shown with Frozen.) for the March 2, 2014 ceremony. I'll update with the actual winners after the ceremony is over to see how well (or poorly) I did.

UPDATED WITH WINNERS IN RED

• Best Picture: 12 Years a Slave
  
• Best Actor: Matthew McConaughey
• Best Supporting Actor: Jared Leto
  
• Best Actress: Cate Blanchett
• Best Supporting Actress: Lupita Nyong’o
  
• Animated Feature: Frozen
• Cinematography: Gravity
  
• Costume Design: American Hustle [The Great Gatsby]
• Best Director: Alfonso Cuaron, Gravity
  
• Documentary Feature: Dirty Wars [20 Feet From Stardom]
• Documentary Short: Prison Terminal [The Lady in Number 6: Music Saved My Life]
  
• Film Editing: Gravity
• Foreign Language Film: The Great Beauty (Italy)
  
• Makeup and Hair: Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa [Dallas Buyers Club]
• Original Score: Gravity
  
• Original Song: "Let It Go," Frozen
• Production Design: The Great Gatsby
  
• Animated Short: Get a Horse [Mr. Hublot]
• Live Action Short: Helium
  
• Sound Editing: Gravity
• Sound Mixing: Gravity
  
• Visual Effects: Gravity
• Adapted Screenplay: Philomena [12 Years a Slave]
  
• Original Screenplay: American Hustle [Her]

My final score: 17 out of 24. Biggest surprise -- Her winning Best Original Screenplay. Biggest disappointment -- Bad Grandpa not winning for hair and makeup.

Her is a sweet love story, but is it original?

There's a lot of hype surrounding the new Spike Jonze movie, Her, a story of a man who falls in love with his computer operating system. The film takes place in a retro future where people are more connected to their personal devices rather than the humans around them. Theodore (Joaquin Phoenix) is trying to come to terms with an impending divorce that has left him devastated in the relationship department. Oddly enough, he works for a company that "writes" personal letters for people and Theodore is constantly praised for how heartfelt his letters from a husband to a wife, or parent to child, are. It's a totally bizarre concept, and makes one wonder what kind of world these people live in. I've heard of people writing poems for other, but personal letters with intimate details takes the concept just a bit too far.

Theodore goes through his day writing lovely letters for people and trying to satisfy his own needs at night, usually through a kind of online, cybersex hookup (the one we see does not turn out so well for him, but is hilariously voiced by Kristin Wiig). When a new personalized operating system hits the market, he decides to give it a try and discovers a very human sounding voice helping him sort his email, his calendar and his personal life (it goes so far as to find a date and book a restaurant reservation for him). But the OS is designed to truly interact and grow as it communicates with its owner, and the fact that it sounds like Scarlett Johansson is a definite plus. The OS names itself Samantha, and Theodore begins to feel that he's found the perfect woman … even if she doesn't have a body.

The film deftly follows the developing relationship, and both Phoenix and Johansson give terrific performances … made even more amazing as Johansson was not the original voice of Samantha. We see their ups and downs, and are introduced to Theo's friend Amy (Amy Adams) and her husband along the way, as well as his boss (Chris Pratt) who wants to go on a double date with his new girlfriend, Theo and Samantha. With Amy's introduction, we learn that she and Theo dated in college for a minute … and that they really would be perfect for each other if they could only see that for themselves. Both actors are so good that we ache for her to ditch her controlling husband and pull the plug on Samantha so she and Theo can live their lives happily ever after.

Aside from the excellent cast, Jonze's direction and eye for production design are impeccable, but I do have to take issue with the pants all the men wear. Does Jonze think everyone loses any sense of fashion style in the not-too-distant future? All the men wear tweedy, very high-waisted pants that are this side of ugly. Chris Pratt even seems to be wearing a pair of "The Pants That Ate Fred Mertz" that come up to his nipples. Not a good look on anyone. The script, by Jonze, is sweet and sad and is being praised for its originality but … is it all that original?

I can think of two cases of stories that have computers and humans falling in love. Electric Dreams (1984) had a human, Miles (Lenny Von Dohlen), and his computer (the voice of Bud Cort) vying for the affections of neighbor Madeline (Virginia Madsen). It got some notice at the time for its depiction of technology becoming intelligent but is mostly forgotten today. There was also a TV movie anthology (a pilot for a proposed series) called Rex Harrison Presents Stories of Love which also had a segment in which a computer falls in love with its programmer (I remember watching this when it aired and bawling my eyes out when this story came to a tragic end). So while Jonze's twist on the story and execution are emotional, I wouldn't really call the foundation for the story "original."

The one thing, though, that does stand out is the voice acting of Johannson. Many people are saying this is truly a case for rewarding a voice only performance with an Oscar nomination, but we know that will never happen. She is, however, excellent and even though we only hear her voice, the performance is so powerful that you could almost swear she is actually in the movie. If Her deserves praise for anything, it's the decision Jonze made to recast the voice with Johansson, who in turn brought a lot of humanity to the artificial intelligence. That's not to take anything away from the movie as a whole, but I do think this one is a case of over-hype for a movie that could have just been a sweet but strange love story and now has the burden of being Oscar bait resting on its shoulders.

Saving Mr. Banks is practically perfect

You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who doesn't love Walt Disney's Mary Poppins. The film is practically perfect in every way … but I'm sure there are a few sourpusses out there who hate the movie just as much as the character's creator, author P.L. Travers. The new film Saving Mr. Banks takes a look at Disney's twenty year struggle to get the film made while battling Mrs. Travers at every turn. You may never look at Mary Poppins the same way.

Saving Mr. Banks tells the story of the making of Mary Poppins, and gives us an insight into Mrs. Travers as well. When we first meet her, it's 1961 and she's just about out of money. Disney has been beating on her door for twenty years to secure the rights to her book (the movie actually uses material from three books), and with the prospect of losing her home before her, she agrees to her agent's requests to fly from London to Los Angeles just to meet with Disney to see what he has planned.

Disney tries his best to charm Mrs. Travers, but her demands of what he can and cannot do with the character turn to task of creating a film into a much larger chore than anyone thought it would be. No singing, no animation, nothing red! Travers holds an iron grip on the characters, and things come to a complete deadlock when she realizes that Disney and his creative team actually have no clue what the story is truly about.

But we do as the movie presents Travers' life as a child in flashbacks peppered throughout the film, showing us her doting father allowing her to run wild with her imagination … but also his darker side of alcoholism that constantly has his job in jeopardy and eventually leads to major health issues. When he become totally incapacitated, an aunt arrives to take care of the family and all of the pieces fall into place. Disney also eventually puts the pieces together, and it's no spoiler to say the film gets made and everyone lives happily ever after … at least in the movie world. The real life conclusion to this tale is a little less bright and shiny than we're led to believe.

That one little flaw aside, Saving Mr. Banks is a wonderful film that's really targeted more to adult fans of Mary Poppins than it is to children. Emma Thompson portrays Travers as a tough-willed dame who comes off as a total bitch most of the time, but in the context of her life you have to have some understanding of why she holds on to these characters so tightly. They are her family and she does not want to let them go or be mistreated or misunderstood by some Hollywood bigwig (she hated the finished movie so much that she refused to sell the rights to any more of her Poppins books, although she did agree to the stage musical on the condition that only British writers worked on it and no one from the movie had any participation, which kept the Sherman Brothers from writing any new songs). A lot of people may find Travers unbearable, but I understood where she was coming from and Thompson manages to take some of the edge off of her while still keeping that steely will intact. She's definitely due some awards consideration.

Tom Hanks plays Disney as a down-homey business man. He knows what he wants and he'll do what he has to to get his way. It's a fine performance, but I'm on the fence about the way he uses a kind of sing-songy voice when he speaks to Mrs. Travers. I felt it was a little condescending, and perhaps Travers did too which was way she was so difficult to work with. She probably felt like she was being treated as a child or some rube from the countryside of England who had no idea how Hollywood worked (she didn't, but that's beside the point). It's a fine performance, but this being a Disney film, I don't think they really portrayed Disney on screen as he may have been behind closed doors. I mean, he had to have lost his temper at some point with the demands Travers was making. It would have been nice to see a little more of the dark side of Disney.

Colin Farrell gives a nice turn as Travers Goff, Travers' father (yes, she took her father's name professionally), never letting him be anything but a damaged soul. Goff may have been his own worst enemy, but he has nothing but love and kindness for his daughter even in his darkest hours. B.J. Novak and Jason Schwartzman play Robert and Richard Sherman, the songwriting brothers who had to convince Travers that "responstible" was a real word (that they just made up) and that they could compose songs that weren't just fluff. Schwartzman gets most of the screen time, and he does a great job of sticking to his guns and never giving up in the face of Travers' naysaying. Paul Giamatti also gives a nice performance as the driver assigned to Travers during her stay in LA, and becomes the only American she can tolerate. He and Thompson have some very nice moments together.

Director John Lee Hancock keeps the film moving along once Travers arrives in Hollywood, getting out of the way and letting his actors do their work. Special mention must be made of the production design and art direction by Michael Corenblith and Lauren E. Polizzi, who have kept the film's period detail remarkably accurate, from a vintage stuffed Mickey Mouse to the look of Disneyland at that time. They really nailed the era.

Saving Mr. Banks may not be Best Picture material – it would have benefited from giving Disney and his team a little more depth instead of making Travers the complete villain of the piece – but it is pleasant and tells a very interesting story that's mostly true (stick around during the credits to hear some of the actual recordings made during the pre-production process and you'll get an idea that Thompson's Travers isn't too far from real life). It's one of those movies that actors are attracted to for rich characterization and awards possibilities, and the audience wins with a quality production that's both enlightening and entertaining.

Elysium is full action and subtle social commentary

I confess, I have not yet seen director Neill Blomkamp's District 9 so I really had no idea what to expect when walking in to see his latest sci-fi/social commentary flick Elysium, except that they were both filmed in some squalid location in Mexico. The story is fairly simple: Matt Damon plays Max, an ex-con trying to make an honest living without falling back into old habits. He lives on an earth slightly more than a hundred years from now, one that has been over-populated and under-fed, with a lack of decent education and health care. Yes, these are the 99%. The 1% have fled the planet, living on a giant spinning wheel in earth's orbit, Elysium, which resembles a posh Beverly Hills neighborhood on steroids. Anyone from earth who tries to get to Elysium, illegals as they are called, faces immediate deportation or worse.

After an accident at Max's factory job that gives him a full dose of radiation and five days to live, he goes back to his criminal past to try to buy his way onto Elysium. But his former boss wants something in return … a code that can reboot Elysium and grant all of the "illegals" citizenship, allowing them to travel to the space station and partake of things like their miraculous healing machines. Max desperately wants to get to a machine, so he agrees to intercept the code from his former boss at the factory (who works for Elysium's Secretary Delacourt, who will stop at nothing to keep Elysium immigrant-free, including staging a political coup and installing herself as president), but finds out the operation will require an actual operation as the code is downloaded into his boss' brain … and it comes with a self-destruct code in case someone else tries to access it. Will Max survive long enough to get to Elysium and carry out his mission? Will Delacourt get the code from Max and fulfill her desires? Or will Delacourt's mercenary Kruger catch on to her plan and try to steal the code for his own military-style coup?

Right from the start of the movie, you know where Blomkamp's social commentary is heading with a space station full of "Haves" and a planet full of "Have Nots." This is set up in the film's prologue (with Max as a child) and carries through the film yet, unlike the social commentary of the baffling Oscar winner Crash which hit you over the head with it, Blomkamp simply establishes this future as what it is. It's been this way for a long time, so it's really just a matter-of-fact part of the story. Some people have questioned whether the commentary should be more in your face, but I don't think it's necessary. I appreciate not being pounded with the whole issue, but it's always there. It's why Max needs to get to Elysium to get healed, it's why Delacourt wants control of Elysium (and Kruger as well, to some extent). Even when the story shifts to the machinations of the coup, you don't forget why all of this is going on. It was subtle, and for that I applaud Blomkamp for showing that restraint.

While Blomkamp reels in his social commentary, he really cuts loose with the visuals and the action. The scenes of shuttles and androids are simply jaw-dropping. I would assume these are all CGI-created special effects but everything looks real. Placing these kinds of effects in the dirty, dusty environment of earth and having them blend seamlessly with the elements totally sells this as a real place and helps bring the viewer into the story. Matt Damon's performance also helps ground the film in reality. When Max gets sick and then risks his life to retrieve the data, you really feel for him. Even when his story takes a little detour when his childhood friend's daughter is dying, you feel his struggle when he has to tell her he can't help get her to Elysium.

On Elysium, Jodie Foster gets to sink her teeth into what may be her first real villain role, spitting out her dialog with pure venom. Her accent is a little off-putting though, because it looks like Jodie Foster but it doesn't sound like Jodie Foster and sometimes it seemed as if her dialog was dubbed. I just had a real disconnect, but it was still great to see her be pure evil (and interesting to note that she and Damon have only one scene together). Sharlto Copley, who starred in District 9, plays Kruger as a totally unhinged maniac with only one thing on his mind – killing. I was also jazzed to see William Fichtner pop up, however briefly. He always makes things more interesting. Kudos to Blomkamp, too, for not shying away from dealing out some gruesome fates to some of his characters (yes, some people actually explode).

Elysium may get slammed for what appears to be a big set up then shying away from the social commentary, but I appreciated the restraint. Blomkamp tells his story with a great cast and some amazing visuals, and you couldn't ask for anything more from a summer blockbuster. It's got a lot of intricate moving parts that keep propelling the story forward, but it's not going to make you feel that you just got preached at for two hours. I think the fact that the conversation among those who have now seen the movie, discussing the commentary or lack thereof, shows that Blomkamp have have accomplished exactly what he set out to do.

The Wolverine has claws, but they're a little dull

I'm probably the last person who should be reviewing a movie based on a comic book. I read a few comics when I was younger (and worked at a comic book store!), but I have not really moved on to the graphic novels that have taken comic books to a more mature level. I love the movies made from these comics and graphic novels, but I really have no reference on which to base an opinion except for the movie.

And so it is with Marvel's latest superhero movie, The Wolverine, a sequel to the pretty dismal X-Men Origins: Wolverine which was a prequel to the X-Men trilogy, and now works its way into being a lead-in for the upcoming X-Men: Days of Future Past (make sure you stay part of the way through the end credits). Got all that? Apparently, The Wolverine is based on a graphic novel in which the plot takes Logan, tired of being a superhero after having to kill his love Jean Grey in the third X-Men movie, out of the wilderness he's banished himself to and straight to Japan at the request of an "old friend," a former Japanese soldier whom Logan saved from the atomic bomb dropped on Nagasaki.

Logan believes he's going to say goodbye to the dying old man, but the man actually has a deal for him: he has a cure for Logan's immortality. Haunted by the spectre of his beloved Jean (Famke Janssen, reprising her role), Logan briefly considers the deal, but the man dies before he can come to a final decision. Meanwhile, the yakuza are after the old man's granddaughter, Mariko, because she is now the most powerful woman in Japan after being the sole benefactor in the will … something her father is not too happy about. Logan suddenly finds himself as Mariko's self-appointed bodyguard, but there seems to be much more going on than meets the eye.

The Wolverine is certainly a better movie than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, adding a few bits of much-needed humor, but it's also a missed opportunity. Plopping Logan down in the middle of Japan was an inspired bit of plot development, and casting mostly unknown Japanese actors in the supporting roles (plus Russian Svetlana Khodchenkova) puts the audience in Logan's fish out of water shoes. The best of the Japanese cast is Rila Fukushima as Yukio, a Harajuku-looking girl who is a badass with a sword and has some special powers of her own. Will Yun Lee is probably the most recognizable of the supporting cast, but he really has very little to do but react to situations and fight. The film's downfall is Tao Okamoto as Mariko. Okamoto is just perpetually blank throughout the film, whether she's in danger or attempting to romance Logan. Her performance is so bland that I could never tell if she was truly a victim who needed saving or if she was in on the plot to steal Logan's immortality. Okamoto is basically the Japanese Kristin Stewart.

Where the film succeeds is in its action sequences, which are unfortunately top-loaded in the first third of the film, which leaves a truly leaden middle section where Logan and Mariko are hiding out, plotting their next move. The attempted assassination/kidnapping of Mariko at her grandfather's funeral is staged brilliantly, and even as silly as it is (think the Chunnel Train scene in Mission: Impossible), the fight on top of a bullet train is one of the film's highlights. The problem with the plot, though, is the fact that we know that Logan is never in danger of losing his abilities or dying, so where is the suspense? It's hard to care about a character's journey when we know he ain't really going anywhere.

I went into The Wolverine with the lowest of expectations, so to say that it wasn't as bad as its predecessor is at least faint praise. I was just really hoping it would have been better, but a predictable plot and some bad casting have nearly de-clawed everyone's favorite mutant.

Photo: Ben Rothstein/20th Century Fox/Marvel

Pacific Rim is a gigantic hit

Sometime this year, the world was/will be invaded by gigantic monsters, or kaiju, from beneath the sea. Literally, beneath the sea as they are coming from a large fissure on the ocean floor that has a sort of wormhole to another dimension. Got that? And why are we suddenly under attack from these behemoths? Seems they were here once before (the dinosaurs) but the environment was a bit too inhospitable for them. But now, with all of mankind's contributions to the earth's atmosphere, we've basically made the planet a great place for them to live and us to die so the Jaeger program was created to construct gigantic war machines (robots, but not really robots since these are actually piloted by humans) that are our last defense against the kaiju (no other conventional weapons work against them).

But there's a problem … the kaiju are getting bigger and stronger, and some government muckety-mucks think a giant wall around earth's coastal cities will be enough to keep the kaiju out, so they dismantle the Jaeger program. And then the kaiju break through the wall. It's up to retired Jaeger pilot Raleigh Becket (Charlie Hunnam) to save the day by rejoining what's left of the program, but his memories of losing his brother during a fight (the Jaegers require two linked pilots basically sharing one brain, so he still has his brother's memories) and the trauma experienced by his new partner may be larger obstacles to overcome.

Pacific Rim is the definition of a summer blockbuster. Director Guillermo del Toro wastes no time in getting the movie started. We get a brief recap of what started in 2013 that leads quickly up to the story of Raleigh and his brother in 2020, to the film's present of 2025. By that time, Raleigh is a construction worker on the wall when he's called back to duty by his former commander, Stacker Pentecost (Idris Elba). The film wastes no time on any major character development, giving us archetypes for supporting characters (a Chinese team of pilots and a Russian team of pilots never get to say a word, but are stereotypically identifiable just by their looks) including a father/son team from Australia, with the son having a chip on his shoulder about washed-up Raleigh returning to the program.

Of the three main human stars, Hunnam is handsome and stoic, but he's almost a bit too bland and reserved. Elba is a commanding presence and really puts his all into the performance, especially when he gets to bark out the film's iconic line, "Today, we are canceling the apocalypse!" Rinko Kikuchi, as Pentecost's right hand, Mako, who becomes Raleigh's left hand, isn't given a whole lot to work with but she manages to take her character's inner pain and put it all right on her expressive face. She really has to have the most internalized performance, but you still can feel her trauma and need for revenge against the kaiju. The little girl who plays the young Mako in a flashback is amazing, registering the child's pure terror while trying to save herself from a kaiju.

But Pacific Rim isn't really about the humans, it's about the kaiju and the Jaegers. If you've ever seen a Japanese monster movie ("kaiju" comes from that particular genre), you should get great joy from Pacific Rim. Del Toro obviously loves the genre of giant monsters smashing major cities, and has gone to great lengths to make each of the kaiju look different and have different abilities. The addition of the Jaeger as an opponent to the kaiju makes the fight scenes more thrilling because, unlike a movie like Transformers where it's hard to tell the robots apart when they're fighting, you have two distinct adversaries so there is no question as to who is fighting who.

The film, however, rests on the success of the CGI effects and they are flawless. You marvel at the effects, knowing these are not people in rubber suits. These characters have real weight to them even though they exist only on a massive computer hard drive somewhere. The film would have fallen apart completely if the audience did not buy what they are seeing, and after the initial wow factor of "how did they do that," you settle back into your seat and enjoy the ride. I had the opportunity to see the film in IMAX 3D, and the experience was amazing. The film looks beautiful, the 3D worked well although it's questionable if it was really necessary, and the sound design pummels your ear drums while helping to sell the illusion of the weight of the CGI creatures.

With only a few minor quibbles (lack of characterization, and the late-in-the-game appearance of a new weapon that should have been used much earlier), Pacific Rim is a blockbuster that should be seen on the big (or biggest) screen. It's a summer popcorn movie, but it's not a sequel or a remake, and it's not a movie based on a TV show, so audiences need to show Hollywood that we can support something original.

Photo: Warner Bros. Pictures

This Man of Steel flies high

I have to say it's not very often that I see a movie, think about it for 24 hours and find even more things to like about it. It's quite often the other way around. Going into a screening of Man of Steel, I was worried we were going to get too much of Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight angst and not enough of the charm that has made the character so endearing for seven decades. Not to worry though, Zack Snyder, David Goyer and Nolan have turned out a very well-balanced film full of action and real human emotion.

By now, everyone must have an inkling of Superman's origin story, be it through the comics, the Christoper Reeve movies or TV's Smallville. It's certainly not something that needs to be retold again, taking up the first hour of the movie and boring the fans to tears (like The Amazing Spider-Man did). Snyder and Goyer have opened the film on the planet Krypton and followed the story of the planet's destruction (yes, regardless of the rumors, Krypton does indeed explode) quite closely to Richard Donner's 1978 film … yet it somehow doesn't feel like a retread of something we've already seen. The credit goes to the totally different ecological system of the planet (no ice planet here), and the performances of Russell Crowe (Jor-El) and Michael Shannon (Zod). You know right from the start that Zod is badass, but even pacifist Jor-El engages in a smackdown against him before the Kryptonian council sends Zod and his people to the Phantom Zone.

After baby Kal-El – the first natural born child on Krypton in centuries (they're all manufactured to perform various duties from floor sweeper to politician) – is sent to earth, we are mercifully spared his whole childhood and pick up with a grown Clark navigating life trying to keep his true abilities under wraps. Of course, he does something that gets nosy news reporter Lois Lane on his trail, and here the story does depart from the traditional mythology – Lois knows Clark Kent is not of this earth and he is forced to show her what he can do. It's so refreshing to not have to deal with the whole "why is Lois so stupid that she can't see Clark is Superman" thing. It's like a weight has been completely lifted off of the story, and when Zod and his army arrive on earth (and their escape from the Phantom Zone is very well explained), Lois is just as important to stopping them as is Kal-El (only referred to as Superman in one scene by military personnel).

Once Zod arrives, the film kicks into high gear with an epic battle that stretches from Smallville's Main Street to the center of Metropolis. The question is why does Zod want Kal-El so badly (no, not for revenge for his time in the Phantom Zone), and what are his plans for earth? It's actually quite a chilling scenario that is going to take teamwork from Kal-El, Lois and the military to stop.

I have complained about how Star Trek Into Darkness was nothing more than a rehash of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and if you want to come right down to it, Man of Steel is pretty much a rehash of parts of Superman: The Movie and Superman II. But, whereas I was angry with the direction Star Trek went with the story (if you're going to intentionally break away from the original timeline, then give us original stories, for Pete's sake), I found a lot to like about the way the material was handled in Man of Steel. Did we need to see Zod again? Maybe not, but in the context of this being an "origin" story, it was necessary since he is the most recognizable Kryptonian villain and there is a reason he's on Kal-El's tail. Thankfully, there is no Lex Luthor, although there are references to LexCorp a couple of times.

There is also just enough material in the film that will take long-time fans back to the first two Christopher Reeve movies, but it never feels like it's just there to pander to the fans (I liked that the first time we see Lois, she's getting out of a helicopter instead of into one). And Snyder and his team have managed to ground the film in reality outside of the almost way over-the-top battle between Kal-El and Zod. Scenes with Clark and his mother, or just quiet moments between him and Lois feel authentic, as do the flashbacks to his youth (well, except for the new version of Pa Kent's death), and the actors are playing the characters as if they were in anything but a superhero movie. They're certainly not as earnest as any of the Dark Knight characters, but I totally appreciated the genuine human emotion they bring to the characters. Besides the crazy, Metropolis-leveling battle, my only real eye-rolling moment was when they seemed to go out of their way to let us know this "savior of earth" is 33 years old. I know there have been correlations to Kal-El and Jesus in the past, but this little bit of info was just a bit ham-fisted.

Other than that, and the wretched 3D conversion (we had to wait a whole year for that?!), Man of Steel ranks up there with the best of the superhero films, but the question now is with Kal-El having already saved the planet from an alien invasion of sorts, where can he go next? The Reeve Superman was able to rescue kitties from trees and save California from destruction at the same time, so I hope we get more of those small, charming moments in the next film (already in pre-production). We've seen what the excellent Henry Cavill can do with the character (and he sells one particularly gut-wrenching moment that drew gasps from some audience members, including myself), and I am more than ready to see where he and Kal-El will go next.

The Hangover Part III is a surprisingly clever final act

Full disclosure: I didn't think The Hangover was as funny as everyone else did, and I absolutely hated The Hangover Part II because it was simply a carbon copy of a movie I had just watched the night before on DVD! That being said, I felt I had to subject myself to The Hangover Part III just to see if they even bothered to do something different. The result …

Total surprise! I did not leave the theater angry at having wasted another two hours of my life. The Hangover Part III actually has a story, a new story, a different story, something as far away from the first two films as you can get.

The main plot of The Hangover Part III (and you may be left wondering how the title even makes sense since no one ever actually gets drunk and blacks out during the course of the film … but there is an answer) starts with an intervention on Alan's (Zach Galifianakis) behalf. He's been off his meds for six months, he bought a pet giraffe because he could (and then accidentally decapitates it on the drive home), and has a fight with his beloved father who dies from a heart attack as a result. Alan's family and friends, The Wolfpack, gather to make him an offer he can't refuse, and the guys – Phil (Bradley Cooper), Stu (Ed Helms) and Doug (Justin Bartha) – go on a road trip with Alan to the rehab center. On the way, their van is run off the road, they are all abducted and brought to a man named Marshall (John Goodman), a character who was mentioned once by "Black Doug" (Mike Epps) in the original movie.

It seems that Mr. Chow (Ken Jeong) stole over $20 million in gold bars from Marshall (and clever flashbacks to the first two films help set this plot up) and he wants Chow and the gold, and he thinks the guys are the only key to contacting Chow, who had escaped from a Thai prison in the film's pre-title sequence. It seems that Alan has been a pen pal with Chow while he was in prison, and Chow has emailed him to set up a meeting. Marshall wants the guys to bring Chow to him and he'll be keeping Doug – yes, he's left out of the main action again – as collateral.

The Hangover Part III really works this time – and seems to be getting a raft of negative reviews – because the story drops the whole blackout gimmick and becomes more of a darkly comic action flick. I found the Wolfpack characters to be extremely unlikable in the previous films, but this time they've been softened and humanized just a bit to give the audience characters to engage with and root for, a key element for any movie. The adventure they are drawn into, and the clever plot twists and turns along the way as you never know if Chow and Marshall are being up front with the Wolfpack, really made this an entertaining ride. I appreciated the intricacies of the plot and the clever way characters from the past films – Black Doug, Jade (Heather Graham), "Carlos" (Grant Holmquist, the same baby from the first film!) – have been incorporated into the story. It's these callbacks that really bring the series full circle and give it a very satisfactory ending. Melissa McCarthy also pops up in a pivotal role that gives meaning to the film's title in a brief post-credit segment (so don't leave as soon as the credits start rolling).

As much as I disliked the first two Hangover films, I have to give credit to Todd Phillips for having the balls to really take the story in a different direction, and for the actors and studio willing to go along for the ride. The addition of John Goodman gives the film a bit more respect, in my book, and adding some depth to the Chow character even makes Jeong's performance more bearable. Overall, The Hangover Part III succeeds because it is a different situation with established characters that keeps the puzzle formula of the series intact, but putting the pieces together requires a little more ingenuity. It will be interesting to see how the series' fans take to the new approach but, for me, The Hangover Part III is by far the best in the series.

The Great Gatsby is a work of art

Listening to people talk about the new movie version of F. Scott Fitzgerald's American literature classic, I feel like I may be the only person who has never read the book. I somehow managed to get through high school and college without ever once cracking open the pages of that novel. And on top of that, I've never seen the 1974 version starring Robert Redford and Mia Farrow, so I really am coming to the story cold. And perhaps for Baz Lurhmann's new epic extravaganza, I'm all the better for it.

The story, for those who don't know, focuses on the elite of Long Island in the Roaring Twenties as seen through the eyes of Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire). His cousin Daisy (Carey Mulligan) has married the wealthy Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton), but a mysterious man from her past, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio) has set his sights on her, trying – hoping – to woo her with his fabulous mansion directly across the river from her own mansion, or by throwing lavish, wild, booze and music-fueled parties. No one, however, seems to know the real Gatsby or if he even exists. That is until Nick gets an invitation to a Gatsby party … and no one is ever invited to a Gatsby party; they just show up.

Nick befriends the enigmatic man and finds himself a go-between for Gatsby and Daisy. It seems that Gatsby met Daisy once when he was a penniless war veteran, but knowing that he could never live up to her expectations, he deserted her so that he could somehow make his fortune and prove his love to her. Unfortunately, her current marriage has gotten in the way of Gatsby's plans and it's only a matter of time before tragedy strikes and changes the course of everyone's lives.

You're either going to love or hate Lurhmann's The Great Gatsby and I absolutely loved it. Lurhmann can certainly bring excess to the screen (see Moulin Rouge), and this seems to be precisely why so many mainstream critics hate the movie. I was mesmerized by Gatsby's over-the-top parties, complete with music not of the era, but somehow a Fergie song fits very well with the images on the screen.

The cast is a mixed bag of performances. DiCaprio is fine even if he still has a baby face that belies his nearly forty years. His Gatsby is properly enigmatic, but perhaps the character is such a puzzle to begin with that not even DiCaprio can show us who the real person is. Mulligan is lovely and makes Daisy almost untouchable, and sometimes it's hard to see why Gatsby is so infatuated with her. It's hard to know if there's much substance beyond that pretty face, and if Gatsby is only "in love" with her to prove to himself that he is good enough for her. Maguire, unfortunately, is in a perpetual daze and his narration of the story sometimes sounds like he's simply reading a script (or directly from Fitzgerald's novel). Edgerton really is the film's star, bringing life to a character that, I'm told, is not very well fleshed out in the book, but in the movie he's always got an air of danger about him, making you wonder if when presented with the opportunity to go off with Gatsby she finds herself torn simply out of fear for what Tom might do to the both of them. I think it's Edgerton's performance that really makes the rest of the actors work harder and saves the film from being a bore with pretty visuals.

Lurhmann has also chosen to shoot the film in 3D – to the chagrin of people who hate the process and don't understand why a story like this needs the process – and in his hands, he has proven what the process can bring to a film. This is no shoddy conversion. The film was shot on high definition digital video in native 3D, and if you watch closely you can see how Lurhmann has really composed the film for 3D. He uses the depth of field beginning from in front of the proscenium to as far as the eye can see, placing objects in front of actors while the massive sets or exteriors stretch far behind them. Lurhmann's 3D really envelops you in the story while only pulling out the gimmicky stuff – snow, rain, confetti – when necessary. It's very well-balanced and looks gorgeous. While watching the film, I kept thinking that this is how The Hobbit should have looked.

Baz Lurhmann's The Great Gatsby may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I found the performances and the story to be engaging for the most part, the 3D an immersive experience, and the visuals to be absolutely stunning, making this film a true work of art.

Oblivion will blow you away

In the year 2077, humans have left earth and colonized Saturn's moon Titan after a devastating alien attack in 2017 that left the planet uninhabitable. We won the war after using our nukes to take out the aliens, but we lost the planet in the process. Two humans are left to service patrolling drones and protect massive hydro collectors, which are sucking up the earth's oceans to be used as a source of energy on Titan. The humans, Jack Harper (Tom Cruise) and Victoria (Andrea Riseborough), are an "effective team," as their mission control leader constantly refers to them, but Jack feels like something is missing.

Five years earlier, Jack and Victoria had their minds wiped so as to make sure if they were captured by any aliens, or Scavs, left on the planet they would not be able to reveal any of humanities last secrets. But Jack has visions of a New York City he never knew, which existed before he was born. And a woman. With two weeks left before making the journey to Titan, Jack has a life-threatening encounter with the Scavs, and sees an object fall from the sky – a space capsule with humans in some kind of stasis. The drones destroy all but one of the survivors, and the one looks exactly like the woman in Jack's memories. And then things get freaky.

Oblivion is a movie best left unspoiled as the plot takes many turns that can leave some audience members dazed and confused. I've been amused by the many people, including some respected film critics, who didn't completely understand what was going on. The film does throw many surprises at you, but the one most people seem to have a problem with is a flashback that really explains the entire movie. I'm more perplexed by people who are confused by this storytelling device than I was about anything else in the movie.

Some people have also said that a major plot point involving the Scavs has been spoiled in the promotional ads, but I wasn't spoiled by anything I saw before the screening. In fact, the movie was nothing that I expected from seeing the trailer, and that's a good thing. You go in with a preconceived notion of what you think the movie is, and come out with your mind blown.

While skirting the film's plot, I have to say that Tom Cruise turns in another solid performance. I can't say that he's playing anyone different than he's played in Minority Report or Mission: Impossible, but it is another solid performance. I guess you could say he's reliable when given this kind of role. I really felt a lot of emotion from Andrea Riseborough's performance as she tries to keep Jack reigned in, even if at times she seemed a little too childlike in the way she looks at him. Olga Kurylenko, as the mysterious woman, is fine but isn't really given much to do except be the catalyst for Jack's actions. And for all the focus on Morgan Freeman in the ads, I think he's in the movie about ten minutes and seems to be playing a futuristic version of Lucius Fox. Nicolaj Coster-Waldau is also in the movie, and Oscar winner Melissa Leo also turns up in a very odd performance. None of them are bad or bring down the movie, but seeing fairly recognizable actors in small, odd or insignificant roles almost takes you out of the action.

That action, however, is terrific and second-time director Joseph Kosinski (Tron Legacy) proves that he has the chops to deliver a visually magnificent film (he also developed the story). Along with his cinematographer Claudio Miranda, they have produced some startling images that could be framed and hung on your walls – vast deserts with tops of skyscrapers jutting out, a shattered moon, a hidden oasis – and they look even more spectacular on the huge IMAX screen, the recommended way to see this film. The sound design is also amazing with some really cool, original sound effects created for the drones. And kudos to Kosinski and Universal for daring to deliver a blockbuster, summer sci-fi flick that isn't a reboot, remake or sequel to something else. Yes, Kosinski does pay homage to many sci-fi films of the past, particularly The Matrix, and throws in a Top Gun reference as well, but these things don't detract from the mind-bending story.

Oblivion may not be a complete sci-fi classic, and it may not be everyone's cup of tea, but I was enthralled by the whole environment Kosinski has created, I was particularly charmed by Riseborough, I was blown away by the visuals and sound design, and I was always kept guessing as to where the story was headed. Some have said the film was too obvious and unoriginal, but I was totally drawn in with wide-eyed wonderment.

The Hobbit finds its way to Blu-ray

Warner Brothers is releasing Peter Jackson's The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey on multiple home video formats on March 19 but the big question is will fans of the original Lord of the Rings trilogy be an enamored with this film (and its two coming follow-ups)? Before I go through the Blu-ray, here's a look back at my original review posted on CliqueClack.com:

Wow, has it really been nine years since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King was released? It really doesn't seem that long, but it does seem like it's been an eternity since the wheels started turning on production of The Hobbit, what with the rights feuds, a studio bankruptcy, and a director withdrawing even before the first frame was shot. But now it's here, at least the first of three chapters, and the big question now is: was it worth the wait?

The answer is neither yes or no, as the first chapter in the new trilogy is resoundingly average. I remember being enraptured by the first Lord of the Rings movie from the very beginning; the look, the style, the music … everything about it just drew you into the world of Middle Earth. Since we've all been there, settling into a viewing of The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, should be like settling into a comfy couch. You certainly know what to expect style-wise with Peter Jackson once again behind the camera, and even the story should have some familiarity to it since we're re-connecting with characters we already know from the previous films (even though this one takes place sixty years earlier).

Unfortunately, what Jackson has done by taking a simple, single volume children's story and turning it into a nine-hour epic is made the movie overly bloated and episodic, especially during the first hour when we're meeting the thirteen dwarfs and getting side stories that do and do not have any bearing on the main story at hand. For instance, Gandalf (Ian McKellan) tells the story of another wizard, Radagast the Brown (Sylvester McCoy) and his discovery of a necromancer destroying nature all around him. This side story intrudes on the main story as Gandalf brings news of the necromancer to Elrond (Hugo Weaving), Galadriel (Cate Blanchett), and Saruman (Christopher Lee) who dismisses it as just a man playing with magic. Of course, the necromancer will obviously play into the story as Benedict Cumberbatch was cast in the role (and he's credited, but never seen in the movie ... and will be providing the voice of Smaug the dragon).

The main plot of the book is there, though, between all of the extra stuff Jackson has added. Bilbo Baggins (a terrific Martin Freeman) is enlisted by Gandalf to join a band of dwarfs on their quest to regain their homeland, and gold, from Smaug. Along the way, they have to battle orcs, goblins, trolls, and after getting separated from the group during an underground battle with the goblins, Bilbo meets up with a strange creature, Gollum (Andy Serkis), and comes in possession of that magical, golden ring. It's here that the movie finally kicks into gear with Serkis' amazing performance. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences really needs to rethink their acting categories to include motion capture performances like this, because even though the actor is replaced by a fully realized CG character, his performance is just stunning (and the advances in CG rendering since the last movie has grown by leaps and bounds, making this the most realistic Gollum yet).

Unfortunately, the movie ends just as it's really getting started with the band of travelers seeing their destination for the first time off in the distance. What The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey ends up being is a three-hour origin story that we have to wait a year to see how it pans out. Another problem I had was that the whole thing felt like Jackson was just indulging himself. It took a while for the LOTR films to show us some major battles, but The Hobbit has at least three! The effects are incredible, but it all seemed like a bit of overkill and padding. The story has gotten completely lost amongst all the pageantry. More time should have been spent getting to know the dwarfs, the camaraderie, the journey, instead of just throwing one battle after another at us (and don't get me started on the pointless rock giants fight scene that only served to show off more CGI wonders). As it is, by the end of the movie, you really don't care one way or another about Thorin's (Richard Armitage) quest to get back to his home, and with most of the plot points from the book already included in this movie, you have to wonder how much more padding is to come. I fear that the Hobbit trilogy is going to go down in film history as the new Star Wars prequels trilogy.

When I saw the film theatrically, I saw the new HFR 48 fps 3D version which did not impress me at all. It ended up looking like an old BBC video production that you might have seen on Masterpiece Theater. The sharpness and detail were amazing, but it just didn't look like a movie or have that film-like quality the other trilogy has. It looked surprisingly flat even though it was in 3D, and some of the scenes were overly bright and contrasty with some of the white areas almost blown out. I was hoping that the presentation of the film on Blu-ray would correct some of these issues, but it only seems to magnify the problems. Not that there's anything wrong with the Blu-ray presentation itself, it's the source elements that are to blame. Some of the flat, overly lit scenes are still flat and overly lit. There are also some issues involved with converting the 48 fps down to 24p for Blu-ray, especially in any scene that has a lot of fast motion -- some of the CGI effects move just a bit too fast and there is no motion blur, so they just look like really bad special effects. I wondered if the HFR process was going to impact the eventual home video edition, and it has. The average viewer may not notice but, to me, it stuck out like a sore thumb. The film's audio, however, will give your home theater system a nice workout.

The Blu-ray + DVD combo contains the complete movie on a single disk with no extras, giving the film room to breathe (the DVD is the same). A separate disk contains the bonus material, and while you can't technically call this a "bare bones edition," the bonus material is really nothing new. The bulk of the material is the ten-part video blogs Jackson and his crew produced during the production of the film, and since these were available online before the movie was released, the blogs are mostly a tease for what is to come.  The ten blogs, if you haven't already seen them online are:

• Video Blog #1: Start of production, April 14, 2011 (HD, 10:32) -- Peter Jackson gives viewers a tour of the various departments preparing for the first day of shooting leading up to day one of production. A look at the welcoming ceremony is very moving.
• Video Blog #2: Location scouting, July 9, 2011 (HD, 10:20) -- Shooting on the first block has completed, we learn where cast and crew will be spending their break, and Jackson looks for locations for the second block, and the logistics involved in bringing a full cast and crew to a remote area. Interesting tidbit: Jackson mentions shooting the two Hobbit films.
• Video Blog #3: Shooting block one, July 21, 2011 (HD, 13:19) -- Cast and crew talk about their favorite parts of shooting the first block of production. Meanwhile, Peter Jackson has been transported to England's Pinewood Studios. Ian McKellan has an uncanny knack for remembering all the dwarves' names. A highlight: John Rhys-Davis visits and meets his "father." And there is a surprise cameo at the end, which explains Jackson's location.
• Video Blog #4: Shooting in 3D, November 4, 2011 (HD, 10:46) -- A nice piece for the tech geeks as Jackson and crew discuss the 3D process (all of the cameras have names) shooting at 48 fps, and how everyone from makeup and costumes to pre-production artists had to adapt to the new formats.
• Video Blog #5: Locations Part 1, December 24, 2011 (HD, 12:04) -- After weeks of shooting in the studio, the production moves to locations around New Zealand and the logistics involved of moving a huge crew and cast. The Hobbiton location has been under construction for two years, and the new construction has been built from permanent materials for future tourist visits.
• Video Blog #6: Locatons Part 2, March 2, 2012 (HD, 12:28) -- Production has begun on part two of The Hobbit, but we're back to where we left off on location. The actors marvel at how real everything in the studio looked, and how unbelievable the real locations look.
• Video Blog #7: Stone St. Studios tour, June 6, 2012 (HD, 13:59) -- A comprehensive look at Jackson's studio including the Weta Workshop.
• Video Blog #8: Wrap of principal photography, July 24, 2012 (HD, 14:42) -- Jackson and the cast visit Comic Con and present a production reel leading up to the final day of shooting. Another moving moment occurs as Jackson thanks everyone for their hard work and support.
• Video Blog #9: Post-production overview, November 24, 2012 (HD, 14:08) -- A look at everything that goes into completing the film, including editing, digital effects, sound effects and recording the score.
• Video Blog #10: Wellington world premiere, December 14, 2012 (HD, 14:42) -- A look at all of the preparations for the world premiere, and the overwhelming turnout in Wellington, NZ.

Also included is a six-minute promotional video apparently produced to promote New Zealand tourism, using the films as its selling point, several Hobbit theatrical trailers and video game trailers. There is also a code included for the Ultraviolet version of the movie which you can stream on a variety of mobile devices whenever and wherever you want. Of course, there will be a deluxe expanded edition coming later this year which will have a lot more bonus material and even more padding added to the movie itself (that it will help bring more depth to the film as the re-inserted material did for the LOTR trilogy is debatable). So, hardcore fans may want to hold out for that edition of the video ... except there is one extra special bonus that those fans will probably want to see: with the code provided in each copy of the home video, owners will be able to access a live video presentation of a first look at The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug hosted by Peter Jackson on Sunday, March 24 at 3:00 PM Eastern/Noon Pacific (an edited version will be archived on the film's website). You just have to decide if the purchase price is worth having access to the live event.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is currently available for Digital Download, and will be available as a Blu-ray combo pack, Blu-ray 3D combo pack, and 2-Disc DVD Special Edition on March 19.