Bionic Nostalgia - The Legacy

Fairly quickly after the television debut of "The Six Million Dollar Man" the word 'bionic' entered the lexicon permanently, going from a science fiction term to a science fact in recent years.  While no one has been granted super-strength, speed, or senses from their bionics (that we know of), cybernetic replacement of limbs, as well as things like cochlear implants are almost everyday things. 

As we've seen, the television universe was too big to have just one bionic man.  Soon Steve Austin was joined by the Seven Million Dollar Man, the Bionic Woman, and Maximilian the Bionic Dog.  In 1976, during Lee Majors' bad mustache phase, Vincent Van Patten became the Bionic Boy in a backdoor pilot that failed to go to series.  Both series, "The Six Million Dollar Man" and "The Bionic Woman," left the air in 1978, but would return in just under a decade. 

Three TV movies would follow starting in 1987.  The first, simply and awkwardly called The Return of the Six Million Dollar Man and The Bionic Woman, was similar to the Bionic Boy in two ways - it was a failed pilot and involved a young man getting bionics, in this case, Austin's illegitimate son. The last two, coming in 1989 and 1994, were Bionic Showdown and Bionic Ever After?. 

The legacy of Martin Caidin's Cyborg novel, and the "Six Million Dollar Man" television series that was based on it continues to today. There are novels, comic books, jigsaw puzzles, the "Bionic Six" animated series (among dozens that feature bionics within them), a new, if short-lived, "Bionic Woman" show, and of course the always-threatened-but-never-announced theatrical film. Bionics remains a part of our lives and pop culture decades later.

Check out the rest of my posts in this series here.

Sigmund and the Sea Monsters

I remember when the original show of "Sigmund and the Sea Monsters" aired, not the first episode, but the preview for NBC's new Saturday morning line-up the Friday night before it officially debuted.  I don't just miss Saturday morning kids TV, but also those preview specials, both for the kids shows and the prime time line-ups as well.  I watched the preview and I watched the first episode the next morning, along with the first version of "Super Friends" and the animated "Star Trek."

And yeah, I watched Sigmund regularly, probably mostly because everyone else did - it was popular.  Comics were twenty cents a piece, you could ride your banana seat bike just about everywhere, and "Delta Dawn" and "Brother Louie" were on the AM radio all day, why not watch Sigmund?  It was wild and vivid (I can't say colorful, we didn't have a color TV yet), and even though we weren't old enough to know about drugs yet, we knew the guys who came up with this stuff were a bit out of their heads. 

The premise of the show, developed by Sid and Marty Krofft, the then-kings of live-action Saturday morning, who swear no drugs were involved in any of their shows, was that two boys had found a sea monster at the beach and kept him in their clubhouse, hilarity ensues.  In the title role was Billy Barty in a leafy seaweed covered rubber suit, supported by Johnny and Scott, having misadventures running from Sigmund's family while the boys kept him a secret from their domineering housekeeper (the parents never seemed to be around). 

Beyond its popularity, I might have also watched because of lead actor Johnny Whittaker.  As Jody on "Family Affair," he was a kid of roughly the same age growing up just like us.  The show had its moments, especially in the all the puns of the sea monster world.  They watched shellavision, and Sigmund's father was a bit of an Archie Bunker type, good fun. 

The show had its flaws as well in the boys' absentee parents, the weird genie character Rip Taylor played in the last season, and Johnny Whittaker trying start a singing career.  I guess he thought if the Patridges and the Bradys could do it, so could he.  The show lasted three seasons then fell into the obscurity of syndication. 

Sigmund lives on in the memories of those who watched however, my wife among them.  The Bride is a huge Sid and Marty Krofft fan.  We own all of their varied TV projects, on VHS, and DVD.  I know hardcore.  The popularity beyond the 1970s and Saturday morning are probably what spurred Amazon to produce a reboot.  The first episode is available now, with more to come. 

The new series has essentially the same premise.  The kids have a Disney channel vibe, David Arquette plays a creepy sea captain who believes in sea monsters, and the monsters themselves have been given a bit of an upgrade, slightly.  Let's face it they still look like rubber suits, but with a bit more life and more abilities.  Johnny Whittaker, looking every bit of four decades wear, even makes a cameo.  And to be honest, Arquette's not looking so great either. 

Like the original, it's not bad, and it's probably doing just what Amazon hoped it would - be great for fans of the 1970s version who are now sharing it with another generation.  Even The Bride didn't mind it, wanting to see another episode before giving a final opinion.  I kinda dug it.  What did you all think who've seen it? 

Beauty and the Beast 2017

Beauty and the Beast ~ This is yet another of Disney's unnecessary live action remakes.  I don't see the point of these honestly, unless of course they are told from a different point of view entirely like Maleficent, or completely different as in the Tim Burton Alice films.  While Cinderella did answer some questions from the animated feature (as does this one), I found it ultimately dismal, and what could have been the best part of The Jungle Book was left on the cutting room floor (Scarlet Johansson's "Trust in Me").

I was very wary of the new Beauty and the Beast.  Not only was the original an Oscar nominated and winning classic of Disney's new animation age, it could have been decidedly difficult to animate.  In fact, the scenes I had seen in previews of the castle objects come to life, like Lumiere and Cogsworth, did not impress me. 

The casting worried me as well.  Hermione Granger? I'm not saying that Emma Watson is typecast but she would have to go a long way to make me believe she is anyone but Hermione, and as hard as she tries here, Emma never comes off as anything but playacting as Belle.  Honestly all of the roles are very solidly in most of our minds from the animated feature, it's hard to envision anyone else in those spots. 

The animated objects in the original are charming cartoons but here the CGI versions come off as a bit creepy, just to the left of Tim Burton.  We love those cartoon characters but the new ones are impressive yet cold and inhuman.  Similarly the music is also impersonal and feels very much like artificial or karaoke covers. 

Don't get me wrong, the live action Beauty and the Beast is a good movie, heck, it might even be a great movie for those who have never seen the classic original, but for me, the best it will ever be is a pale and ill wrought imitation.  Worth seeing only for the curious and the hardcore Disney fan only.

Ghostbusters II

Ghostbusters II ~ We've talked about how much I love Ghostbusters, and even the recent remake, but back in the day, we all wanted to like the sequel, we really wanted to, and most of us were disappointed. Although, in hindsight, that just might be questionable. In light of friend Derrick Ferguson's positive review of the film and recent TV viewings, I might have changed my mind. Go read it now, and all his other reviews, he rocks. 

I remember distinctly however the moment when I started to doubt the sequel. Run DMC covered the title theme song, and I was a huge fan of theirs and always loved the tune (seriously who didn't, and doesn't?), but the cover was a disappointment, no one's favorite Run DMC song, delivering none of what could have been so cool, just a meh version. This was the first omen.

Then came the movie. I remember even before I saw it, much like recent DC Comics movie releases like Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice and Suicide Squad, the word was bad even before it was released. Despite warnings I was there first night to see it, and first impressions, it was not good. As I recall, it did not last in theaters for very long, nowhere near the blockbuster the first movie was.

There was much reference given to the successful cartoon based on the original movie, so all the characters had to appear, and Slimer was given special preference for screen time against folks who more deserved it. More than lip service was given to the slime that was too integral to this plot, but only funny in the original in one line. Worse than that, it led to the bad special effects of the Statue of Liberty ending that made audiences groan when it was supposed to make them cheer and sing along.

More screen time was given to the 'nerd love' subplot with Rick Moranis and Annie Potts, and of course the biggest drain was Bill Murray (not as enthusiastic, or as funny, this time) and Sigourney Weaver romance/non-romance and baby. Notably the original film was almost flawless, but the only slow parts were with these two I thought. To build on that was a mistake.

All that said, the rest of the film is not bad, and actually a good follow-up to the original. We get a viable and evil-looking villain (Vigo's visage alone, especially in a picture that may or not move is the stuff of nightmares), and a patsy comparable to Weaver and Moranis played by the underappreciated Peter MacNicol who still makes me laugh with that accent (definitely in agreement with Derrick on this). I especially loved the connection to the first film and homage to Son of Kong as the Ghostbusters are put out of business by property damage lawsuits.

As I said, upon re-watching and reading the above-mentioned review, I may have changed my mind. Derrick might be right.  I think it's bad, but not that bad. Unfortunately the experience may have soured much of the cast on doing a third one, but happily on not cameo-ing in the new film. This is not necessarily a recommendation, but maybe give this one another look with an open mind.

Pete's Dragon 1977

Pete's Dragon ~ Even with my interest in Disney, I doubt I would have seen this one any time soon if it wasn't for the remake in theaters recently. Even when I was a kid, it seemed kinda juvenile and just a bit silly. And that is just based on the images of Elliott the dragon and the television commercials I had seen. As I watch it today it's definitely meant for younger kids.

Based on an unpublished short story, a boy comes to town with his invisible dragon protector while pursued by his evil hillbilly parents. A live action film with only Elliot the dragon animated, presumedly his shadow being state of the art animation for the time, it's no Mary Poppins, despite its trying desperately to be. Elliott is cartoonish, pink and green, and voiced by Charlie Callas, an unfunny comedian best known to me for his silly noises and ruining Sinestro.

The musical antics feel like they might be better set on a stage than a movie, notably the score as well as one song were nominated for Oscars. Helen Reddy, Mickey Rooney, and especially Shelley Winters are all fun, but seem out of place here. The whole time the movie feels like it's just trying too hard. And I really wanted to like it, I tried, but couldn't get there.

Good for the kids maybe, but not for me.

Pete's Dragon 2016

Pete's Dragon ~ We were lucky enough to be on board the Disney Fantasy when this remake of the 1977 Disney classic premiered so we got to see it in the Walt Disney Theater. No matter what the film is, there's really nothing like seeing one in one of those grand old-fashioned theaters of yesteryear.

Whereas the original was a musical lark made for the younger kids, this version is a bit more serious. This non-musical family drama has a boy raised in the woods coming to civilization after several years, and the green-furred dragon who was his guardian and companion while he was away. There is also an ecological subtext here as well but Disney doesn't press it too hard.

Bryce Dallas Howard, and Karl Urban as the not-so-bad guy, are good, and Robert Redford is fun as the old storyteller patriarch. Elliot the dragon is wonderfully rendered, with the scenery and the visuals the real stars here. That said, I'm not sure I would liked this one as much had I seen it on the small screen. It's a theater movie.

The 2016 version of Pete's Dragon is not just better than the original movie, it's a completely different movie, so really, there isn't a comparison. It's fun, definitely check it out, good for the whole family.

Ghostbusters 2016

Ghostbusters ~ My pre-viewing problems with the 2016 remake/reboot/reimagining of Ghostbusters had nothing to do with the gender or talent of the actors involved. Maybe.

I didn't care about the gender switch, and I actually thought the idea that only the women were competent and the men are idiots was pretty clever. My problem was with the Bridesmaids connection, a film I did not like, and Ghostbusters has its director and two of its stars. That was my problem.

And I'm also not one of those folks who worship the original and don't want it remade, because it's 'sacred.' Hey, yeah, the original was awesome, still holds up, is freaking hilarious, and is an almost perfect movie, but nothing changes that. The 2016 Ghostbusters is not the 1984 Ghostbusters, but let's be honest - what is? It's hard for such lightning to strike twice. Don't believe me? Just ask Ghostbusters II. Bam. Yeah, that was me dropping the mic.

The theme is roughly the same as the original, three scientists and a fourth team member chase ghosts in New York, until a larger threat rears its ugly head for the final battle. In this case, it's not an extra-dimensional entity trying to break through on its own, but someone in this world trying to bring the netherworld here, and become the king of ghosts. The story works, despite some plotholes that may be the result of worrisome editing - I won't hold it against the movie.

Melissa McCarthy and Kristen Wiig are adequate but funny and believable, and it was a blast seeing Chris (Thor) Hemsworth playing mimbo, but the prize performances in this flick are undoubtedly the wonderfully hilarious Leslie Jones and Kate McKinnon who steals the movie whenever she is on screen. She easily out-weirds Harold Ramis from the original.

There are also appearances from the original cast as well, most notably Bill Murray as a disbeliever who is so mean and humorless one had to wonder if this was acting or how he really felt about Ghostbusters. Either way, he's good. Too bad Rick Moranis couldn't be convinced to show up out of retirement.

The 2016 Ghostbusters is a great summer popcorn movie, and a hell of a lot of fun. It is thankfully no Bridesmaids, and certainly not worth the harassment many fans of the original have put it through. It's just great entertainment, check it out, you'll love it too.

The Man Who Fell to Earth 1987

The Man Who Fell to Earth ~ I haven't seen the David Bowie version of this film in decades, so when I saw it on the schedule, I immediately DVRed it. At the time I didn't know there was any other version of The Man Who Fell to Earth, at least until I sat down to watch it. This is a 1987 television adaptation with Lewis Smith in the title role.

There are changes to the story, including oddly the characters' names, and of course the ugly updating that happens with any remake. Smith lacks the charisma of Bowie, yet brings it off well and is adequately believable. Look for Annie Potts and Beverly D'Angelo, as well as then-future "Star Trek" cast Wil Wheaton and Robert Picardo. I love Wheaton, but he's not good in this at all.

Once the memory of Bowie, and the original movie, can be removed, this flick isn't bad. It's not good either, mind you, but it's harmless viewing, a sometimes painful, sometimes amusing 1980s time capsule. All things considered, it's probably better than it should have been.

The Island of Dr. Moreau 1996

The Island of Dr. Moreau ~ In prepping to watch Lost Soul, the documentary about writer/director Richard Stanley's aborted attempt to make this very film - I sought out and watched the 1996 version of The Island of Dr. Moreau for the first time. I must confess that I have not read the H.G. Wells novel it's based on, one of more than a few holes in my Wells reading, but I have seen the 1977 version, and I know the basic story.

First, this is a period piece that has been updated to modern times, introducing the idea of genetics into simpler concepts of Wells' beast men. Sometimes change is not good. Other than the idea of genetics this updating does little for the story. I was disappointed in the make-up, primitive even for 1996, face masks not much better than the 1977 movie.

With the inclusion of Marlon Brando as the titular role of Dr. Moreau, comparisons can't help but be made with Apocalypse Now, in both character and story. In fact, these similarities drove a wedge between once friends H.G. Wells and Joseph Conrad, who wrote Heart of Darkness, on which Apocalypse is based. The presence of Brando, as well as his performance, do not help that situation one bit.

I was also very disappointed in the cast, Val Kilmer and Fairuza Balk simply walk through the film. David Thewlis, so wonderful as Remus in the Harry Potter movies, has no charisma as our POV character, and the great Marlon Brando is... is... I don't know what the hell Brando is in this movie. I never realized until seeing this how dead-on the "South Park" parody of Dr. Mephesto was. Wow.

I was also surprised that I saw nothing special or spectacular here visually. I usually enjoy John Frankenheimer's work, in fact, I think this is the only one of his movies I did not love. Now I can't wait to watch Lost Soul, to see what may or may not have gone wrong. Because this, is so wrong.

The Towns That Dreaded Sundown

Producer/director/actor Charles B. Pierce, perhaps best known for making Bigfoot famous in The Legend of Boggy Creek, took another 'true story' and mined it for this Sam Zarkoff American International movie that serves as the blueprint for the traditional slasher film. Written by Earl E. Smith, in 1976's The Town That Dreaded Sundown, we learn the tale of the Phantom Killer who terrorized young couples on lovers lanes in Texarkana in 1946.

The movie begins documentary style establishing the period, including narration by Vern Stierman who also did the job more than ably for Boggy Creek. His frequent voiceovers keep the film solidly in docudrama mode, which for the most part works.

Unlike the slasher flicks that would follow, this one views things from law enforcement as opposed to the kids. Veteran character actors Andrew Prine and Ben Johnson take point in the investigation with great chemistry, along with Bierce himself providing much needed comic relief as their sidekick. Also look for Dawn Wells, Mary Ann from "Gilligan's Island," late in the film.

The film looks very good, and the period is set well. I loved the music, the clothes, the cars, and even the language. Kudos go to Jaime Mendoza-Nava, an underrated composer of 1970s B-movies who deserves more credit than perhaps he's been given. He was good. The film gets all As for atmosphere. And it's not just a great period piece for the 1940s, but also 1970s cinema as well.

Stuntman and later stunt coordinator Bud Davis played the masked killer known as the Phantom. Except for the ridiculous trombone scene, he is actually pretty frightening. And his white bag mask conjures imagery of the Ku Klux Klan, which is scary enough, but notably it made me wonder what the movie was really about when I saw the video box before I ever saw it.

The Town That Dreaded Sundown was reimagined in 2014 by Ryan Murphy, the brains behind "Glee" and "Nip/Tuck," and his sometime collaborator Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa, a big muckety-muck at Archie Comics, and whose credits also include The Stand comics for Marvel, HBO's "Big Love," and the 2013 remake of Carrie. It might seem like an odd fit, but it kinda works.

This is notably not a remake as much as it's a sequel, one in which the original movie is a movie based on the real events. Yeah, I know, it's a whole new level of meta. There are many

parallels, and the narration is a nice touch. With "Nip/Tuck" so many years ago, and more than a few seasons of "Glee" since then, it's easy to forget that Ryan Murphy has a very deft hand with suspense and horror.

Watching these two flicks back to back was an intense but entertaining evening of television, two generations of creators giving their take on a supposedly true story. They're both worth a look, more so for horror fans. And don't forget, it might have happened decades ago, but they never did catch the Phantom...

A Tale of Two Heroines

Two different trailers came out today for two very different projects, the film trailer for the movie version of Jem and the upcoming television series on CBS, "Supergirl."

 These are examples of how Hollywood has taken two already existing projects and given them completely new takes - one getting everything completely wrong, and the other possibly breathing new life into it. I bet you can guess which one is which.

Yeah, I'm a guy, but I'm also a huge "Jem" fan and I can't express how disappointed I was when I saw the above trailer.

 I'm also a big Supergirl fan, mostly of her early seventies stint in Adventure Comics, and while this interpretation is far from that version, I am very interested in seeing it.

 What do you folks think?

Cinderella 2015

The Disney live action remakes of their classic animated features seem to have certain identity issues. Or perhaps it's me who has the issues. In my opinion, they never seem to be what they intend to be, or what they seemed to intend to be, ya know?

There was that hideous Tim Burton version of Alice in Wonderland with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter that is unbelievably getting a sequel, which of course not the first reimagining of a classic property Burton and/or Depp have had a hand in destroying. See the evidence of Dark Shadows, The Lone Ranger, and Willy Wonka. And then there was the switched point of view version of Sleeping Beauty, Maleficent, which missed several chances to be much better.

I think the same can be said of the new 2015 version of Cinderella, but it would only be my opinion though, which is far from objective. I think the two leads are attractive, I just don't think they are attractive enough for Cinderella and Prince Charming. I did like the extra backstory of Cinderella's family, and motive for Lady Tremaine. These were nice touches that added to the story.

You can hear my thoughts, along with those of The Bride, my podcast partner, on this episode of The Make Mine Magic Podcast

Walt Disney's Robin Hood

Robin Hood ~ Although it's from the watered down Don Bluth years, the post-Walt Disney era in the 1970s when the studio really didn't know what to do with itself, this 1973 animated version of the Robin Hood legend still holds good memories for me.

My big brother took me to see this flick at the old Atco Drive-In, where it was on a triple bill, followed by the original 1965 That Darn Cat with Disney mainstays Dean Jones and Hayley Mills. The last feature, which we only stayed through the opening credits for, was the gentle Sam Peckinpah classic Junior Bonner with Steve McQueen and Joe Don Baker. It was only rated PG but I guess my brother didn't want to take any chances in case there was anything iffy for eight-year old me in it. I remember sharing a box of Junior Mints with my brother, laughing at That Darn Cat, wondering what Junior Bonner was about, and in general being unimpressed with Robin Hood, which was essentially why we were at the drive-in to begin with - to see the Disney flick. Other than good times with the bro, the movie has never been a favorite. I'll take Errol Flynn over this any day.

Even as a kid, this toned down, sickly sweet, kinda boring version of Robin Hood just didn't do it for me, and having characters so similar to those in The Jungle Book and even Bedknobs and Broomsticks didn't help either. It was upsetting to find that some of the film was reused and traced footage from previous Disney movies. The Jungle Book frustration was heightened by not just it being one of the movies, but also by the inclusion of a snake character (Sir Hiss = Kaa) and a bear character (Baloo = Little John, the latter both voiced by Phil Harris), and even a couple vultures. Even at eight, I could feel the constraints of the budget.

Having been raised on the wonderful 1938 The Adventures of Robin Hood, most other versions of the character pale in comparison, this Disney one much more so, as it's not even a very exciting adventure. There was a lot of care put into the idea of watering stuff down for the children, and the tirade against violence on television and film was just beginning at this time so there's not much really one could do with Robin Hood in this atmosphere. There's even an alternate ending to this flick that was scrapped to make it palatable for the kiddies - or should I say, palatable for the overprotective parents?

Imagine my surprise when I found out that this particular story wasn't even really Robin Hood to begin with, but another character of Eurpoean folklore called Reynard the Fox. Disney had been trying to find a way to bring this story, as well as that of Robin Hood to the screen for quite some time. Animator Ken Anderson found a way to kill two birds with one stone, and combined them. That's why Robin and Marion are foxes. The lion and the rooster also correspond to animal characters in Reynard's tale as well.

Perhaps the powers that be should have just made a Reynard the Fox animated feature and left Robin Hood for future filmmakers to do better, as was done with both Sherlock Holmes and Tarzan many years later at the studio. Recommended only as a curiosity, or for Disney completists.

The Most Dangerous Game

This 1932 thriller is based on the award-winning short story of the same name by Richard Connell, and has been remade dozens of times in film and television. People are marooned on an island where an eccentric lives. He is a big game hunter and has always wanted to hunt the most dangerous game of all - man. Yes, it's an old story, but this is the first time it was done.

An RKO film produced by Merian C. Cooper, The Most Dangerous Game was shot concurrently with King Kong, easy to do as both settings are jungle islands. This flick even stars Robert Armstrong and Fay Wray, and also features an original score by Max Steiner. The cast also includes Joel McCrea, Noble Johnson, Leslie Banks as the villainous Count Zaroff, and Buster Crabbe in an uncredited role.

While there's no big gorilla in this one, it's full of atmospheric thrills and horror. The castle's door knocker alone is enough to give one nightmares, and Zaroff's Cossack manservant Ivan (Johnson) is pretty fearsome as well. The use of shadow reminds me of later Val Lewton work, perhaps inspired by the German silents.

Fay Wray's character here is a bit more sophisticated than Kong's Ann Darrow, and Robert Armstrong is the comic relief as a drunken delight. I always liked him best in this kind of role. McCrea and Banks are quite suited to the black and white hero and villain. And it's fun watching them tromp through the same sets from Kong.

I love the old horrors from the 1930s from RKO and Universal, and King Kong is one of my favorite films, so this is a great companion piece to that. Recommended.

La Jetee

La Jetee ~ This is an interesting little film, and by little, I mean it. It's just under a half-hour long. Written and directed by Chris Marker, it was apparently the inspiration for 1995's 12 Monkeys. This is how I first encountered it. When 12 Monkeys was in theaters, I was working in a video rental store and everyone wanted to see the inspiration for the flick. Needless to say, there were not a lot of customers who were happy with this award-winning twenty-eight minute black and white art film from 1962. That's not to say its not good, let's just say it's different, and not what they expected.

La Jetee is almost exactly the stereotype we mainstream American movie goers think of when we think of a French film. It's arty, subtitled or dubbed (from two different languages), avant garde, hard to understand, and makes 1980s jeans commercials seem to have more depth. And then there's the weirdness of it not actually being a 'motion picture' at all - it's composed of all still shots with voiceover.

Want to give an unsophisticated American Brad Pitt and Bruce Willis fan a headache? Here you go, all in one half-hour package. I remember I had several customers raise a stink not wanting to pay for the rentals for reasons ranging from 'it's not a real movie' to the more direct 'it sucks.' Sorry, no refunds, even for this.

Not being what one would expect is not necessarily bad. La Jetee is just different, very different from 12 Monkeys, but thematically so however. We're still dealing with time travel, just not traditionally so, like its American cousin. In post-nuclear World War III Paris, scientists are trying to send people to the past and to the future in order to save their present, prevent the war, and save civilization. Paradoxes occur and our hero is on the run, haunted by a childhood memory, but eventually things come full circle in an ending that would make O. Henry smile.

If you remove 12 Monkeys from the equation and from your head, La Jetee can be quite compelling and you'll forget all the obstacles that may at first seem hard to get over. The twenty-eight minutes fly by as you're pulled into this world and this man's journey. Marker blends striking imagery with an intriguing storytelling style to create a startling vision. Worth seeing, those long ago video store customers didn't know what they were talking about.

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

I came late to the party, or at least it seemed that way. By the time I first saw the Rankin-Bass version of "The Hobbit" on television, which I learned about from posters in the English classrooms at school, many of my friends were already into JRR Tolkien. I really enjoyed the animated film and later sought the book out, which I also dug.

Then I moved on to the Lord of the Rings trilogy. This was dense and not written in the light manner of "The Hobbit." I got through "Fellowship" and started "Two Towers," then gave up on it. I put Tolkien in the same category as H.P. Lovecraft and George Lucas, great conceptualists, but lousy on the follow through. Over the next quarter century I did finish the trilogy and even re-read it, but Tolkien's style was not for me.

I did enjoy the LotR movies by Peter Jackson however, but I wasn't gaga over it. My brother-in-law was. He convinced me to watch the ten-hour DVD set of it, and it was all right, once. He also got me to watch The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, which I was a bit more excited for. Until the middle of the film, it seemed to go on forever. However once it got rolling it was pretty good, the bits with Gollum, and the Orcs on their trail had my interest.

I recently got a chance to finally see the second installment of The Hobbit, The Desolation of Smaug. First, three parts? Really? This couldn't be one, or two at most? This one had the same problem as the first, it dragged, was even boring in parts. I know Peter Jackson, and a majority of his fan base are in love with Middle-Earth, but it's gotta end some time, and you can't make other people love by making these movies longer.

Has anyone thought of possibly making a TV series, new adventures set in Middle-Earth, to possibly fill this need? Will Jackson be filming "The Silmarillion" or "Tom Bombadil" and making them six to nine hours long? There has to be a stop point, folks. I could see new tales (and there's been a little of that here), but stretching one book to match the trilogy made from three?

Lord of the Rings is a major problem here too, even though those events happen almost a century after The Hobbit. So much is put into setting up LotR that this is more like parts 1-3 of Star Wars rather than The Hobbit. All the bits with Legolas and Sauron, were they really needed, or was this continuity minutiae like what Roy Thomas did with World War II in the All-Star Squadron comic book series?

That said, the Legolas fight scenes were among the best in the movie even though none of it occurred in the book. It also occurs to me why isn't Orlando Bloom in a Marvel movie yet? He is action hero material, and he would be heaven sent casting as Quicksilver, even though that ship has left the dock. I also liked Smaug as voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch. He was very good, except for when he was filling LotR continuity holes. I also disliked the weird love triangle, what the hell was that about?

I liked the movie okay, and it had slow spots as well, giving me a few quick cat naps. I look forward to the third and hopefully final Hobbit film, but I'm not sure I'll see it in the theater, after all, I waited nine months for this one. Your mileage may vary.