The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

When The Hobbit started going into becoming a motion picture adaptation, only two films were planned: “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” and “The Hobbit: There and Back Again.” Afterwards though, Peter Jackson expanded the series into a trilogy starting with “The Desolation of Smaug,” as well as changed the title to the final film to “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies,” released in 2014. There have been some complaints from fans about that decision, but regardless, you can say “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” brings the Middle-Earth series to a favorable conclusion.

Picking up where “The Desolation of Smaug” ended, we actually see the desolation happen – but it quickly makes room for the final film’s main story power. With the kingdoms of Man and Elves trying to come to an agreement that Thorin Oakenshield, made in the previous installments, the newly crowned dwarf king chooses to let the kingdoms manage for themselves. He has his gold, and as soon as he finds the Arkenstone, he’ll be content to just rule over the mountain. Obviously, the Orc armies, lead by Azog the Defiler, played by Manu Bennett, have other plans for the newly cultivated land.

“The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is, in Mike Reyes’ opinion, “undeniably the best of the trilogy, as it's not only a film in perpetual motion, but it's also a lean and quick experience that packs every moment with purpose.” If The Hobbit trilogy had stayed with the two movie plan, Peter Jackson could have kept his Middle-Earth winning streak, as “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” had a great story set up that moved everything into motion. You can tell watching this film that The Hobbit series could have been an incline monster of action and purpose if it hand’s added a large amount of screen time, because if you break up elements of “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug” between the opening and closing parts, you have had two really good movies that lasted over three hours.

A talk of “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” has to include an evaluation of the 45 minute main final fight that goes into the films third act. Reyes mentions, “Suffice it to say, the Battle Of The Five Armies is reminiscent of the Battle of Minas Tirith that The Lord Of The Rings: Return Of The King sported.” This is where Peter Jackson and crew fly in this particular film, as the action has the right amount of set up and physical fight. Still it’s no surprise that Orlando Bloom’s Legolas in one of the warrior’s here. Richard Armitage’s Thorin gets in a fantastic climatic battle with Azog the Defiler here.

The only put-down to “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is that it seems to shove in too much of the already overcrowded cast into the film. For instance, Cate Blanchett, the late Christopher Lee and Hugo Weaving all have a small amount of screen time in a fight that, while impressive, really should only have been with the rest of the Gandalf/Necromancer material that “The Desolation of Smaug” had. Also, Billy Connolly is amazingly classified as Thorin’s cousin Dain Ironfoot, but again his stunt casting is only worth a miserable amount of screen time.

Small complaining aside, “The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies” is a success that brings Tolkien book adaptation with Peter Jackson to a successful close. While The Lord of the Rings is more successful trilogy of the two, The Hobbit will still make for a perfect all-weekend spree with its storytelling successor.

In the end, it may not be as good as the previous two, but I still think it’s just as good. Actually, I don’t think either one of the films in this trilogy is worse or better than the other, much like with The Lord of the Rings trilogy. These two trilogies are very much identical to the Star Wars movies, when you look at it. Only difference is that there wasn’t a huge time gap between the two, like it was with Star Wars. Much like how everyone praises the Original Star Wars Trilogy but thrash the Prequel Trilogy (which I still defend to this day isn’t anywhere as bad as everyone says it is), these six movies have a parallel history as well. However, no one seems to critically thrash on The Hobbit trilogy since it’s still good and has all the elements we love. Sure it’s not as good as The Lord of the Rings trilogy, but there are still worth checking out, so definitely do so.

Well that ends my “Middle-Earth-a-thon” and thus we come to the conclusion of “Halloween Month.” I hope all of you have enjoyed my month reviews on all of the films I chose to review as much as I had making them. Happy Halloween everyone! Go out, dress up in your costumes, give out candy and/or get candy, but most importantly, watch as many Halloween related movies that you can.

In the meantime, I’m going into a week of hibernation and will not come out until next Friday when I start back up with my weekly Friday posts again. See you all next month for another exciting month of reviews.

Suffragette

Why now? You ask yourself exactly that while watching “Suffragette,” which came out last Friday, and is an effervescent, spirited movie about the fight for voting rights for British women in the early part of the 20^th Century, but then the light dawns. Peter Travers said in his review, “The sad truth is that gender bias has never stopped spreading its toxins and I don't mean just the current race for U.S. President.”

Is the movie a true story? Not entirely. Carey Mulligan’s character, Maud Watts, is a fictional combination meant to represent the women of the time, satisfied to work and be subjugated by their bosses and husbands until, well, they aren’t anymore. Meryl Streep shows up for a sharp cameo as militant advocate Emmeline Pankhurst, who advises that her ladies stop being polite and start throwing bricks. Then there’s Emily Wilding Davison, played by Natalie Press, who thought she could win attention to the cause by stepping in front of King George’s horse at the 1913 Epsom Derby and getting herself ran over and killed. She was right and what a life-threatening task for a media spotlight.

What makes “Suffragette” an appropriate menace, besides Mulligan’s strong, affecting performance, is the way it won’t subject to the kind of Holly formula that shaking of your head about how bad it was – only to wrap everything up with a welcome sign that says, “You’ve come a long way, my friend.” The feminist fight continues. Travers mentioned, “And it powers through this movie even when the contours of the story flirt with the trite.” It helps that two women are at the controls – director Sarah Gavron and screenwriter Abi Morgan.

Travers said, “In lesser hands, Maud's odyssey from workslave to activist would have been a catalogue of female anguish.” We see Maud working at the laundry alongside her husband, Sonny (Ben Whishaw), and too near her touchy boss, Mr. Taylor (Geoff Bell). Another co-worker, Violet Miller, played by Anne-Marie Duff, begs her to join the Women’s Social and Political Union. Still, Maud is hesitant, liking to hide her head at home, caring for her husband and young son, played by Adam Michael Dodd. When fate interferes – as it does in this kind of film – Maud is called on to testify in Parliament and to feel real anger when the prime minister declines the voting-rights bill. In cycle with pharmacist Edith Ellyn, played by Helena Bonham Carter, Maud finds the exciting of a revolutionary inside herself. The price is losing everything.

There are times when the movie builds on trouble with too heavy a hand. At other times, “Suffragette” runs through a fire that cannot be denied. You see it all on Mulligan’s powerful expressive face. Edu Grau, production designer Alice Normington and costume designer Jane Petrie, it is that human face that makes this feminist history relatable to this generation and to generations to come. In a sea of Hollywood leisure activity, “Suffragette” – mistakes and everything – is a movie that matters.

I have to admit, I didn’t really want to watch this movie. When I saw the trailers, I didn’t think that this movie would be up my alley, but my siblings really wanted to watch this movie. However, after seeing it tonight, I can simply say that this is one of the most powerful movies I have ever seen about a part of history that is sadly still going on. Definitely go see it, but be warned: this movie is emotionally difficult to watch. There will be moments that you want to jump in the film and hurt the people that are doing these things, but you can’t do that, and that’s what happens when you watch such hard scenes to sit through. Still, make sure that you go to the theater, and if you want, bring along your friend(s), girlfriend/boyfriend, husband/wife, mom/dad, siblings, but don’t bring along your children, nieces/nephews or grandchildren. This is not a family movie for everyone to watch. Take my word for it.

Well, now that I have done that, stay tuned tomorrow for my conclusion on “Halloween Month” with the final entry in “Hobbit-a-thon.”

The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug

Sheila O’Malley started her review out by saying, “Tolkien's parenthetical "when achieved" is the kicker of that statement, the acknowledgement of how difficult and rare successful fantasy really is.” You know it when you see it. She apparently did not find that quality in the first Hobbit movie of Peter Jackson’s colossal trilogy based on Tolkien’s short book, but it is there in spades in part two, “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug,” released in 2013. This center chapter is about a half-hour longer, and the final third splits the story into three parts, which hurts the narrative force that had been building, but that’s fine: the dragon Smaug, voiced with such a delightful sneering evil by Benedict Cumberbatch, the real work has been done. The thematic elements are in place, the emotional tensions are really high, and the action unravels in a flourish like the fire coming out of the dragon’s mouth, overtaking everything in its way.

Except for a flashback which shows Gandalf and the exiled dwarf king Thorin Oakenshield, played by Richard Armitage, coming together in what O’Malley described, “a dark and beer-soaked pub straight out of Chaucer's "Canterbury Tales",” this one picks up where the last one left off, with Bilbo and the fellowship of loud dwarves deep into their journey to reclaim the Lonely Mountain and the dwarves’ lost kingdom.

Bilbo, along unwillingly from his comfortable hole-in-the-ground in the Shire in the first film, is now prepared to accept his fate, and shows imagination and pull in one traumatic situation after another. He’s also got the “One Ring” he found in the goblin cave – the one that makes him invisible, the one that no one else knows about, not yet. It will become quite useful. Gandalf tries to keep the team together, but goes off on his own solo spell-break mission (which Tolkien’s book hints is undertaken by Gandalf to force Bilbo to gain the trust of the dwarves on his own).

Along the way, the protagonists find shelter in the home of a shape-shifting Giant-slash-Bear, and are attacked by a herd of Orcs. O’Malley goes on to say, “To save time, they cut through the Mirkwood Forest and run into a terrifying herd of gigantic attacking spiders, in a scene doomed to give me nightmares for months. (I have barely recovered from reading that scene in the book when I was 10 years old.)” Saved and then captures by the isolationist-minded elves (Robin Kerr, Simon London and Lee Pace), the dwarves and Bilbo find a way to escape in a bunch of barrels down a river, being attacked from the army of orcs and elves alike.

Some old friends show up: the awesome Legolas and Galadriel. There’s a new elf in this one, Tauriel, played by Evangeline Lilly, who becomes one of the dwarves love interest. O’Malley mentions, “The romantic triangle she sparks has nothing to do with anything, but it is still nice to see Tauriel act as a deus ex machina on a couple of occasions.” Stephen Fry has a great cameo as the Master of Lake-Town, a wicked and gout-ridden person ruling it over his fearful citizens from on high. O’Malley is right when she says, “it's a Dickensian piece of scene-chewing.”

Jackson and his crew have a lot of fun creating these three-dimensional worlds, overwhelming us with different moods, energies, and personalities. Some of the images are jaw-dropping: the Long Lake enfolded in mist with mysterious structures coming out of it. The misty dark wood covered with shadowy creatures waiting. The elegant upright palace of the elves, comforting and yet firm, too, suggesting the elves’ unwillingness to get involved in the larger dark enemies taking over the outside world. The final fight with the dragon, when it arrives, is worth the wait (although it would have been better if the wait hadn’t been as long as it was). The dragon’s palace is beautifully imagined, a surging and ever-changing landscape of coins and gold. There are lots of great moments: an enormous tapestry falling from the wall in a flowing wave, huge collapsing columns, and small walkways over the deep hole and the dwarves’ visible fear at their ancestors’ originality and power. Throughout, you get the feeling that you really are in a lost and beautiful world.

For all its capacity, there’s also a kind of ordinary hilarity in Tolkien’s book – as O’Malley puts it, “a "Tut tut, isn't everything just a bit much?" energy, stereotypically British, which has sometimes been lost in the other films, overwhelmed as they are by portent and meaning.” It’s not lost this time. For instance, the barrel sequence goes on for what seems like forever, and every second is acceptable. It has its own energy, hectic and ecstatic, reaching an almost screwball climax, as events project out of control and nobody is sure what end is up, least of all the dwarves. Smaug is a scary dragon, but you still laugh at the detail of Bilbo cringing at the breath coming out from the dragon’s mouth. (O’Malley says, “Now that's the Bilbo I recognize from the book.)

There’s a moment before the spider attack that perfectly lines us up with the overall target of Tolkien’s fiction. Bilbo is told to climb one of the trees to look out of the top of the forest and see how much further they have to go. When he pushes his head through the top, all he can see is a valley of autumn leaves widening almost as far as the eye can see, with blue butterflies flying about along the leaf-tips. The sun shines brightly, and for a moment Bilbo is mesmerized. We know that what happens next is going to be horrific and terrible. However, beauty is there to be appreciated, and the hobbits, with their love of home-like nature, pretty colors, and comfort, know this just like we do. It was the love of home that kept people going in the dark years where Tolkien wrote these books, when the shadow of war was erupting in Europe. The sunlight-covered green fields of the Shire are long gone by the point when Bilbo’s story begins, a distant memory, but the memory gives Bilbo his strength. It is worth fighting for.

Now if you liked the first movie, then this movie is for you. You will absolutely love it, despite the fact that it may run too long and the dragon part you feel should have started the third movie or at least had finished it off right before leaving us on a cliffhanger. Still, it’s a nice movie, and you will enjoy it. I know I did when I saw it in theaters, but I was feeling tired at the Smaug part because I had a final that I took that morning. However, like I said before, this is still a movie worth watching.

Alright everyone tomorrow is the finale to my third annual “Halloween Month.” I will wrap it all up with the final film in “The Hobbit Trilogy.” Also, since I saw “Suffragette” today, I will try to post my review of the movie later tonight, but if I don’t, I will do that tomorrow as well. Stay tuned.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Before I start today’s review, I would like to give a little history on The Hobbit novel. Years after J.R.R. Tolkien finished The Lord of the Rings trilogy, his fans were asking him about what happened before with Bilbo. Since the fans really wanted to know, Tolkien had sat down and wrote The Hobbit, which is surprisingly an easier read. After how much successful Peter Jackson made The Lord of the Rings trilogy on screen, I guess an adaptation on The Hobbit was inevitable. However, unlike a lot of adaptations where the last movie is split up into two parts, The Hobbit was given three movies. Today, we will look at the first of the trilogy, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” released in 2012.

Bob Mondello from NPR started his review out by saying, “The Hobbit's path to the screen may have started out as tortuous as a trek through the deadly Helcaraxe, filled with detours (Guillermo del Toro was initially going to direct), marked by conflict (New Zealand labor disputes) and strewn with seemingly insurmountable obstacles (so many that the filmmakers threatened to move the shoot to Australia).”

Since Peter Jackson’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy grossing in about $3 billion at the box office, there was never any real doubt that the final Tolkien book on Middle-Earth fantasy would definitely become a film – or, as I stated before, a trilogy.

With that said, “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey” isn’t “unexpected” in any way, though between its lighter tone and a decade’s wait for improvements in digital film techniques, there should be enough of a originality case to make most fans happy.

After a part that flashbacks the expulsion of the dwarves from their Lonely Mountain kingdom by the treasure-wanting dragon Smaug, Jackson turns to the Shire, 60 years before the events in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. Frodo’s Uncle Bilbo, reprised by Ian Holm in a framing part and by an intelligently cast Martin Freeman in the flashbacks, is a qualified youngster, while Gandalf, reprised by Ian McKellen, is described by Mondello as “looks as old as the New Zealand hills.”

Gandalf says to Bilbo, “I’m looking for someone to share in an adventure.”

Bilbo denies, but that night, dwarves appear on his doorstep. The first eats his dinner, another searches his pantry, then there’s more. They are an energetic group – not seven dwarfs, but 13 (Richard Armitage, Ken Stott, William Kircher, James Nesbitt, Stephen Hunger, Mark Hadlow, Graham McTavish, Dean O’Gorman, Peter Hambleton, Aidan Turner, Jed Brophy, John Callen and Adam Brown), all with shocking facial hair and with the mission to take back their home land – right after they:

1. Get familiar
2. Have Dinner
3. Fill out some paperwork, and
4. Sing a couple of songs (Misty Mountains and Blunt the Knives)

You’ll get the feeling that there’s a bit of filling going on here. Although Tolkien’s book The Hobbit, or There and Back Again, is shorter than the other trilogy that make up The Lord of the Rings, it was turned all by itself into a brand new trilogy. Mondello mentions, “So where the challenge in LOTR was to condense and reduce and condense again, the challenge here is to include every syllable, plus an appendix or two to boot.”

Mondello went on to say, “In this first film — which covers just six book chapters in close to three hours — the filmmakers are reduced to detailing troll recipes and staging a hedgehog rescue.” Also, they happily make a real good encounter with the one creature who makes any work to Middle-Earth worth it: Gollum.

Actor Andy Serkis and motion-capture still brings out the most memorable character in the 21^st Century movies. Here, though the main story goes toward energetic high spirits becoming the material’s origins in a child-friendly book, Gollum is sinister – even dangerous. Mondello is right when he says, “The high-stakes game of questions he plays with Bilbo is the one moment when this movie can't be dismissed as Lord of the Rings-lite.”

Still, even if it’s mostly CGI this time rather than story that’s giving the depth, there is a new feel to estimate with. Mondello said, “Director Jackson takes to 3-D like an orc to battle, turning an escape from a cave full of goblins into a plunge inside a Rube Goldberg contraption — the camera soaring one way as our heroes careen another, across spindly wooden bridges that sway and collapse in a choreographed frenzy.” Gangs of goblins flying in on ropes get turned into pinwheels, giant logs become pinball flippers hitting them right and left, all in a new method that increases the number of frames per second, making even the fastest action clear, smooth and hesitate-free.

Does that high frame rate also make slower scenes look too real – not orcs and dwarfs, but actors in makeup? Well, if you’re worried about that, you have to the choice to see the movie in six different ways: the usual standard format and 3D format, plus IMAX and 3D IMAX, the new high-frame-rate 3D, and high-frame-rate 3D IMAX. You have the option for how “realistic” you want your fantasy world.

Just remember that all that’s really needed for giving suspension of disbelief is an army of wanting. An army that is already, a day before this was released, lined up at your local theaters.

If you liked The Lord of the Rings trilogy and want to know about The Hobbit, not only would you have to read the book, but see this movie as well. It leaves on a nice cliffhanger so that you can eagerly await the next film. Trust me when I say that this movie is actually worth checking out, even though I don’t think it’s as good as the other three, but still good, nonetheless.

How is the next film you ask? Stay tuned tomorrow in my “Hobbit-a-thon” to find out.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King

We have now come to the epic conclusion in the “Lord of the Rings Trilogy,” “The Return of the King,” released in 2003. Like “Star Wars Episode 6: Return of the Jedi,” this was an amazing conclusion to the trilogy. The stakes were high, everyone came together, all the returning people came back for directing, producing, music, sound, effects, acting, etc., and it was all wrapped up like it was supposed to be.

For those who did not see the extended edition of “The Two Towers,” you did not see John Noble portray Boromir’s and Faramir’s father, Lord Denethor. Now that we see him in this movie, you can see how cold-hearted and cruel of a man he is. He doesn’t care about anything except his legacy and what he must do in order to make sure that he is remembered as one of the best rulers of a kingdom in his own mind. In reality, he is not liked by many and when he thinks Faramir is died, he now decides to care for the son that he never gave any care for in his whole entire life. However, when you see him descend in flames when he jumps off of the castle tower, you are feeling relieved that you don’t have to see him ever again.

The movie starts off with a flashback to how Sméagol got the ring. He was out fishing with his cousin, Déagol, played by Thomas Robins, and when Déagol was pulled in by the fish, Sméagol went to save him, but Déagol found the ring when in the ocean. Since Déagol found it, he wanted to keep the ring for himself, but Sméagol asked for the ring because it was his birthday. Because both of the Hobbits were possessed by the ring, they both got into a physical confrontation before Sméagol strangled Déagol to death and went into hiding.

Also, the start of the movie when Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli found Merry and Pippin in Isengard outside of Saruman’s tower is actually at the end of The Two Towers. I’m not kidding, when you read the book, you’ll notice. Also, Saruman and Grima are in the extended editions of “The Return of the King,” where they both get killed. That’s all I will say, I will not go into any details. That is for you to go see, for those who have not seen the extended editions. Maybe that deleted scene is in the “Special Features” disc on the theatrical cut, but I don’t know. Speaking of the extended editions, Bruce Spence appears as “The Mouth of Sauron” at the Black Gate. He doesn’t really do much instead of coming out and saying, “My lord, Sauron, beds thee welcome.” I’m not kidding, that’s all that he does before, if I remember correctly, he gets killed.

Marton Csokas is in this movie as Celeborn the Wise, who happens to be Galadrial’s husband and the Elven-King of Lothlórien, but that is only at the end.

Now since this was the last of the trilogy, the stakes in this movie were really high, if you could believe that. Peter Jackson himself said that he was going to put as much as he wanted, regardless of the running time in the movie. End result: some of the best epic fight sequences you will ever see in a movie based on a series that puts a lot of Biblical references in it and is basically the Holy Bible of fellow Tolkien worshippers.

Every single one of the battle sequences is just exciting and adrenaline-rushing. Lelogas has this great scene where he is taking down an Oliphaunt, and just like the last movie, him and Gimli are having a contest on who can take down the most enemies. As funny as it is, it is nice to see both of them having fun while saving the world. When Aragorn goes in to see the spirits of all those who have died, it is pretty creepy, but when you finally see them agree to work together, it is just amazing to see them all come through the boat and help kill all of the Orcs. I thought that part was just the three of them going “Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah,” since they had a trick up their sleeves that the enemies didn’t even see coming. Even the parts with the Eagles were great, just to see them come in and help out the Fellowship in their final battle amongst the enemies. I do have to admit, when “How it Should Have Ended” did a joke on this series being over so quickly because the Eagles would have solved everything, it was pretty funny, but that’s not how it would have worked. For those who have read the books and follow them religiously, you know what I am talking about.

Much like how the “Harry Potter” films got, this film was the darkest of the three and had some really scary moments. All of those moments had to do with how the Orcs, Ringwraiths, Spirits and every single beast in the movie looked. The costume, puppetry, animatronics and CGI are all done so well that you really start to feel scared. Especially that scene when Frodo and Sam meet up with Shelob, the giant spider. Gosh, even Gollum had some pretty scary moments, like when he finally gets Frodo under his command and turn on Sam, but they do end up getting back together and taking down Gollum.

As great as this movie was, there was one major drawback that I did not like about this movie. That was those seven cut to black or white moments which fooled everyone into thinking that the movie was over. When I was sitting in the theater, you can believe that I was going to get up from my seat when I thought the movie had finished, but then it fades back to another scene and I had to sit back down. I do agree those moments were completely unnecessary, but if they were going to hold on a fade away scene that long, they shouldn’t have fooled the audience into thinking that the movie was over.

Seeing Aragorn finally become the King that he was born to be was just great. Even though Nostalgia Critic complained that he didn’t really show any signs of being a King and just accepted it when Elrond told him to embrace and become a King, I think that he did show signs of leadership. Look at how much he lead the Fellowship when they were going from one town to the next, keeping them safe, telling the people in the Kingdom what to do, leading people to safety, assisting in the battle tactics. There were plenty of signs like that, but I guess Nostalgia Critic didn’t really notice it.

In the end, this movie is one of the greatest finales ever to an epic series. I understand that they did not really follow the book completely, since the ending in the book was when the Shire was destroyed, but I believe Peter Jackson did not really find time to shoot that segment. Much like how in the first movie he didn’t get Tom Bombadil in there, but once again, I don’t know if he had time to shoot his scenes or if he found him essential in the movies. I know the books are far superior, and I don’t deny that. I listened to the audio books when I would drive to and from school or anywhere else I would go, so I know exactly what everyone talks about. Movies will never go into as much details as the books do when they are adapted on screen. However, it’s still a good movie and is tied with both “Titanic” and “Ben-Hur” as the movie to win the most Academy Awards, and it does deserve all of them. Definitely see this movie if you haven’t and you have seen the others. You will absolutely fall in love with this movie and I give it a solid 10.

Like I have mentioned before when I started this out, this is one of my all time favorite trilogies that are tied on my favorite films list. I cannot decide which one is better, but I like all of them just the same, even though all of them are good in their own respective ways.

Now friends, even though I finished the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy, we are not done with the series just yet. I still must look at the “Hobbit Trilogy,” which I will start looking at tomorrow. Stay tuned until then, because “Halloween Month” will definitely make room for the “Hobbit” movies.

The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers

Next up in the “Lord of the Rings trilogy” is “The Two Towers,” released in 2002. This, much like all of the good sequels out there, did a good job telling the next story. All of the cast members returned, Howard Shore came back to do the music, Fran Walsh, Philippa Boyens and Peter Jackson came back to do the screenplay, but Stephen Sinclair was added to the screenplay. Not only did Jackson return for director, but Barrie M. Osborn, Jackson and Walsh produced it, but Tim Sanders didn’t return as producer.

A few cast members were added to the list of great characters. The most memorable of them is Andy Serkis playing the villainous Gollum/Smeagol. Like every character that Andy Serkis portrayed in his movies, he really plays Gollum so nasty and driven to madness because of the ring. He was the previous owner of the ring before Bilbo found it, which we don’t find out until “The Hobbit,” which we will get to in a couple of days. Andy Serkis not only did the voice, but would dress up and act with the other actors on screen. Not only did the animators have on-set movement and on-set performances but they also had an on-set model that they could capture the light from that was really there in the scene. The guy that they got was a makeup guy who was designing a puppet/costume for Gollum. They taught the guy how to animate him into the scene because they thought he knew what texture to put into it. This is a case of not only animators working, but everyone pitching in so that they knew what to do in this sort of case.

Moving on, Bernard Hill plays King Théoden of Rohan, who is under Saruman’s spell until Gandalf the White (yes, he’s been upgraded in this movie) heals him so he can rule his kingdom again, and he does a great job in this role. Miranda Otto plays Éowyn, Théoden’s niece who is really strong-willed and knows how to defend herself in battle. Plus, she actually falls in love with Aragorn. Her brother is Éomer, played by Karl Urban (later to star in the “Dredd” remake and to play Dr. McCoy in the Star Trek remakes), who is also a strong-willed person that knows how to lead an army. In fact, he was the previous Chief Marshal of the Riddermark but was exiled by the man who was brainwashing Théoden, Grima Wormtongue. Wouldn’t you know it, Grima is played by Brad Dourif. Man does Dourif know how to play a villainous role really well. Grima is played so nasty and slimy, that you are happy once you see that man get beaten by Gandalf and see him away from the movie, never to be seen for a while.

Not only is John Rhys-Davis playing Gimli, but he also provides the voice of Treebeard, leader of the Ents, who are tree people. He really does a great voice in this, playing an Ent who gets enraged when he sees that a large part of Fangorn Forest was burnt to the ground, and the fight that they have was great. Picture an army of Groots going up against the villains. You know who will win. Also, we see Boromir’s younger brother in this movie, Faramir, Prince of the Stewards of Gondor and captain of the Ithilien Rangers, played by David Wenham. We get the feeling that once we see him how much he loved his brother but also that he must have felt neglected by his father because he favored Boromir over Faramir, thinking that Faramir wouldn’t amount to anything.

In this movie, we have a few fights in here. Not only do the Ents get together to fight Isengard’s forces and eventually win, but there is the epic Battle of Helm’s Deep, which is the most epic fight ever. This movie gets darker, scarier, and really makes you hoping that nothing jumps out of the screen. The fight choreography, from the swords slashing through people, arrows flying all over, axes stabbing into the villains, rocks being thrown, shields protecting people, etc. Legolas had a great scene where he grabbed onto a horse and flew on its back and went skateboarding on a shield during the epic end fight. Gimli also has some of the funniest lines in this movie, which I will not dare spoil.

Unlike in the book, where the first part talks about Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli reuniting with Gandalf, going to Théoden, fighting a few battles, Merry and Pippin meeting Treebeard, the Isengard fight, before being found by our four men, and the second part is all about Frodo and Sam finding Gollum, meeting Faramir and their journeys, the movie mixes everything in. There will be a scene of Frodo, Sam and Gollum, before going to Merry and Pippin with the Ents, before going to the rest in Helm’s Deep.

Once again, the locations are just riveting. They are so lively and fresh, that no green-screen was used, not many CGI was used, unless the people dressed up in costumes and the animators were able to work it in, the fight choreography was epic, the direction was done right, the casting was again pitch perfect, the acting was top notch, and the lines were just some of the most quotable ever.

If you have seen the first movie, definitely check this one out. I cannot do it justice with my review, but you have to see this in order to know how great of a movie it is. Now, I wouldn’t say this is better than the first, because I think this is just as good as the first one. Even though the first had great character development, this one was also up there with the first movie. I also rate this one with a 10.

Now we will get to the epic conclusion to this trilogy, “The Return of the King,” tomorrow. Stay tuned until then because it will be a great review.

The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring

For the final week of “Halloween Month,” I wanted to close out by reviewing one of my favorite franchises of all time: The Lord of the Rings. That’s right, the famous J.R.R. Tolkien books that were made into feature films directed by the great Peter Jackson. This series has been praised by every Tolkien fan that these movies are just amazing. Although not as good as the books (even though I never read them, but listened to the audio books after I saw the movies), they still brought the pages to life in the movies. Enough talk, let's start with "The Fellowship of the Ring," released in 2001.

When J.R.R. Tolkien wrote these books, there was a war going on, hence the reason why it is so dark. When you see the piles of bodies or all the fights, blood flying everywhere, people planning on what to do, the great speeches before the fights, you can see where Tolkien got his source material from.

First off, let’s talk about the casting in these movies, because Peter Jackson casted the right people who looked the part, and even acted them out pitch perfect. I couldn't imagine any other actors playing these roles any better. First off, Elijah Wood, who started his film career out as a child, is playing the protagonist, Frodo Baggins. He plays Frodo great as a kind, selfless, innocent, very vulnerable and lonely person. In the role of Frodo’s best friend, Samwise Gamgee, we have the great Sean Astin, who plays Sam as a loyal, tough, hardworking yet also vulnerable companion. Even though Frodo may have been looked at as very weak compared to the books, Sam was always by his side to pick his spirits up, which is what I loved. Now we have this film’s version of Rosencratz and Guildenstern from the best play by William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Meriadoc “Merry” Brandybuck and Peregrin “Pippin” Took. Boy, are these two just enjoyable to see when they are on screen. They feel like the great Bud Abbot and Lou Costello because of how much they poke fun at one another. Thank goodness for the casting of German actor Dominic Monaghan and Scottish actor Billy Boyd. I couldn’t have imagined any other actor playing these parts. I was reminded of Fred and George Weasley from the “Harry Potter” series, which they were pretty much similar to. They were strong, loyal, obedient, courageous, yet playful, but also appreciative and smart. The gay but amazing British actor, Ian McKellen played Gandalf the Grey Wizard as a warm, tough, spiritual, courageous yet cranky guardian. He loved Hobbits since he was around them for so long, but he was just amazing in this role. Viggo Mortensen played Aragorn aka Strider as a self-doubting but disciplined, courageous, romantic, euphoric and a natural born leader even when he doesn’t see it himself. Sean Bean plays the role of Boromir, a very mercurial character who was also tempted and angry, yet courageous, helpful, and cynical. Now we come to the most exciting of all the characters, Legolas the Elf, played by Orlando Bloom. What an amazing character. He was joyful, fun to watch, strong, dependent, could handle a fight and really was a supportive and friendly companion to the fellowship. Next is probably the funniest of all the characters, Gimli the Dwarf, played by John Rhys-Davies. Talk about a comic relief. This guy really knew how to crack a joke and fit in a funny line or one-liner whenever the time was right. Besides being hilarious, he was kind, noble, strong, courageous, and dependent and really was loyal to his fellow friends.

As great as the main characters were, the side characters were just as great. Ian Holm plays Frodo’s uncle, Bilbo Baggins, a character that you really suspect is up to something, and that can be no good. However, when he is not tempted by the one ring, he is a responsible uncle to Frodo and really knows how to take care of him, plus is very friendly. Lord Elrond of the Elves is played by Hugo Weaving, who plays him as a frustrated, depressed, yet supportive, and protective ruler of the Elves of Rivendell. Arwen is played by the very pretty Liv Tyler, who plays a very strong love interest who makes a really huge decision to choose a mortal life so that she can be with the one she loves. Cate Blanchett plays Lady Galadriel, a very strong support for the protagonists. She is helpful, smart, an advisor and has a really good outline of what she wants them to do in order to achieve their tasks.

Now the villains are just pitch perfect. We have Sala Baker playing the main villain, Sauron, but the voice is done by Alan Howard, who also did the voice of the One Ring. Boy are there voices so cunning, bone-chilling and just downright creepy. The Great Eye always watching is something you don’t want to see whenever you’re traveling. The other villain, Saurman the White, is played by the late Christopher Lee. This is a villain that I couldn’t see anyone else playing, simply because the voice is just so cool. You could compare Sauron and Saurman to Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader from “Star Wars.” These are simply two of the greatest villains I have ever seen on screen. They also have an entire army of Nazgul aka Ringwraiths, Black Riders or as The Nine, Orks, and all sorts of villainous creatures that whenever you see them on screen, they look so scary.

This is a film trilogy that was consistently great and just got better with each film. This, like “Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope,” is a perfect beginning for the series. It has a very complex back-story of how the “one ring” was created, and men and elves fought together to defeat Sauron, and the ring was lost. For those who don’t know, three rings were given to the Elves, seven to the Dwarves and nine to great kings that turned into the Nazgul, but one was made by Sauron in the fires of Mount Doom. Starting to get scared yet?

The film can be dark, exciting, but also funny. It has really deep themes, friendship, temptation, destiny, men`s morality, sacrifice, idealism, etc.

Harry Sinclair is in the beginning playing Isildur, the man who cut Sauron's hand off, killed him, and took the ring. Only downside is that he didn't live very long after that before the ring came off of his finger when he hid underwater and ended up dying with arrows in his back.

The film has great set design, location shooting, CGI that mostly still holds up, makeup, puppets, miniatures, and it looks great. Howard Shore gives a great score, and the action is awesome. When you look at this film, the locations are just awesome. Since this film was shot in New Zealand, the film makes you want to visit the country and see where they shot the movie. With the CGI, it’s hard to tell what is, since there are people in costumes, the puppetry and animatronics in this film look just great. It was nice to see a film that still decided to use puppets and animatronics and didn’t completely rely on CGI, but only when they seemed it was necessary. The fight choreography was just well done. The sword fight, bows and arrows, axes, magic, everything. Peter Jackson deserves as many awards that he must have won because of giving us such an amazing series, so hats off to him.

I can imagine why Nostalgia Critic would say the part where they could have saved Gandalf on the Cave of Mount Moria. People might have said that they could have gotten shot by the Orcs when going to save them, but they had dodged all of the shots when they were escaping, and they weren't that far off from Gandalf hanging from the ledge. Oh well, what can you do.

Also, the lines in this movie are just some of the most quotable lines of all time. Not only did Peter Jackson write this, but he also had the collaborative effort of Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens. With these three putting their heads together to give us some of the best lines in movie history is just the most achieving task that any person who makes movies would know.

Overall this is a fantastic film. It gets a 10 and is highly recommended. Go out and watch the movie because I cannot do this film justice just by talking about it. You simply have to go out and see it for yourself to be blown away by it. This is the only film that I got some input from reviewreviewer1 about, so the others I will be playing it solo.

Check in tomorrow when I look at the second in the “Lord of the Rings Trilogy.”

Goosebumps

The world of R.L. Stine, the huge best-selling author of the popular horror-but-you-know-for-kids book, is a very remarkable one. It is complete with cleverly visualized monsters that derive from classic adult or “adult” horror, but which are constantly and imaginatively twisted to a younger audience’s taste and tolerance. Glenn Kenny said, “The point is to supply the requisite, um, goosebumps, but not traumatizing nightmares.” Stine’s success is well deserved, and his stories have been adapted for television and direct-to-video areas, among others. A 2015 feature film expedition into that world is a potentially challenging performance, bur director Rob Letterman, helped by writers Scott Alexander and Larry Karaszewski and Darren Lemke and an energetic cast, rise to the occasion, delivering a movie that’s a lot of good scary fun despite some questioning construction.

Kenny noted, “Scenarists Alexander and Karaszewski go big by constructing a meta-narrative that can contain an incredible number of Stine’s cheeky/scary monsters.” The story begins with Amy Ryan playing the protagonist’s mom, who is the assistant principal, driving her and displeasured son Zach, played by Dylan Minette, to their new home in what he believes to be the most boring spot on this planet, let alone Delaware. Things look up a bit with the appearance of his cute teen girl neighbor Hannah (Odeya Rush) but get confused when Hannah’s crabby, eccentric dad (Jack Black) comes in. At school, a wide-eyed nerd named Champ and referred to as “Chump” by every other student, played by Ryan Lee, makes fast friends with Zach, and the two decide to find out exactly what’s wrong with the new neighbors. (It’s pretty obvious that a big part of the movie got cut in order to get to the monster stuff quicker, and the narrative does take some lumps on account of this.)

It turns out that Black is actually…R.L. Stine, or “R.L. Stine,” and what makes his books so good is that the monsters in them are real – they’re only enclosed when the manuscripts of the books in which they appear are bound and sealed. When Zach’s nosy accidentally brings out an abominable snowman, a ventriloquist dummy named Slappy, voiced by Jack Black (Kenny said, “A veritable doppelgänger for Black’s Stine”) becomes the leader of an army of now-free creatures. Slappy’s plan is to take some kind of not mentioned revenge on his, and their, creator, and cause damage on the town while they’re at it.

Kenny mentioned, “And so we get a series of horror set-pieces that are toned-down variants on the comedy horror scarefests of recent years.” The scene where Stine, Zach, Hannah and Champ try to escape a gym-shorts-sporting werewolf in a supermarket reminds both “The Shining” and “Zombieland,” while being kinder than either. Speaking of “The Shining,” that book and its author are the subjects of several knowing and funny in jokes. The movie is filled with them. Kenny said, “Although my conviction that the army of toy robots seen in a couple of shots is based on the toy designed by Fred MacMurray in Douglas Sirk’s ‘50s melodrama “There’s Always Tomorrow” might be a stretch on my part.”

In any case, every creature, which vary from the tiny robots to alarming freeze-gun arming aliens to giant mantis, are provided very nicely in realistic computer animation, while the live-action cast is always attractive and often very funny. Stine’s character normally refers to the all-important “twist” he builds into each story, and this movie has a twist of its own, a pretty dangerous one that develops on the original reflexivity of the plot itself, while also making a believably sincere statement about the power of imagination and its serious exercise. Kenny ended his review by saying, “Lest I make this sound too heavy, it’s really not; the movie is breezy and fun, offering thrills for kids and a nicely nostalgic matinee vibe for adults.”

This is a very fun, entertaining movie that you should definitely go to the theaters to check out. Have no fear, this isn’t really scary, but is actually one that you can take the whole family out to see and have a nice laugh. Also, this film is right for the Halloween season.

Now look out tomorrow because I will be ending the month off with one of my favorite film series based on one of my favorite series of novels.

Blair Witch 1 and 2

Now we are going to delve into one of the scariest, independent movies ever made, “The Blair Witch Project,” released in 1999. We’re automatically afraid of natural things (snakes, barking dogs, and the dark) but have to be told to fear walking into traffic or touching an electrical wire. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says, “Horror films that tap into our hard-wired instinctive fears probe a deeper place than movies with more sophisticated threats.” A villain is only an actor, but a shark is more than a shark.

“The Blair Witch Project,” an extraordinarily successful horror film, knows this and uses it. It has no fancy special effects or digital monsters, but its characters get lost in the woods, hear noises in the night and find disturbing sick figures hanging from trees. One of them finds slime on his backpack. Because their imaginations have been irritated by talk of witches, hermits and child murderers in the forest, because their food is running out and their smokes are gone, they (and we) are way more scared than if they were simply being chased by some guy in a ski mask.

Ebert said, “The movie is like a celebration of rock-bottom production values--of how it doesn't take bells and whistles to scare us.” It’s shown in the form of a documentary. We learn from the opening credits that in 1994 three young filmmakers went into a wooded area in search of some kind of a banshee: “A year later, their footage was found.” The film’s style and even its production strategy improve the fantasy that it’s a real documentary. The characters have the same names as the actors. All of the footage in the film was shot by two cameras – a color video camcorder operated by the director, Heather (Heather Donahue), and a 16-mm. black and white camera, operated by the cameraman, Josh (Joshua Leonard). Mike, played by Michael Williams, does the sound. The three carry backpacks, and are prepared for two or three nights of sleeping in tents in the woods. It doesn’t work out that way.

Ebert mentioned, “The buried structure of the film, which was written and directed by Eduardo Sanchez and Daniel Myrick, is insidious in the way it introduces information without seeming to.” Heather and her friends arrive in the small town of Burkittsvile (“formerly Blair”) and interview locals. Many have loosely heard of the Blair Witch and other threatening legends. One says, “I think I saw a documentary on the Discovery Channel or something.” We heard that children have been killed in the woods, that bodies have disappeared, that strange things happened at Coffin Rock. However, the movie smartly doesn’t give this information as if it can be trusted. Ebert said, “It's gossip, legend and lore, passed along half-jokingly by local people, and Heather, Josh and Mike view it as good footage, not a warning.”

Once they get into the woods, the situation increasingly turns threatening. They walk in circles. Something happens to their map. Nature itself begins to seem oppressive and dead. They find threatening sings. Collections of sticks, unsettling stick figures. These simple objects are scarier than more complicated effects. They look like they were created by a being that disturbs the woods, not by someone playing a practical joke. Much has been said about the practical photography – how every shot looks like it was taken by a hand-held camera in the woods (as it was). However, the visuals are not just a technique. By shooting in a cold season, by reducing the color palette, the movie makes the woods look unsociable and desolate. Nature is seen as a hiding place for horror secrets.

As fear and desperation grow, the personalities of the characters appear. “We agreed to a scouted-out project!” one guy complains, and the other says, “Heather, this is so not cool!” Ebert mentions, “Heather keeps up an optimistic front; the woods are not large enough to get lost in, she argues, because "This is America. We've destroyed most of our national resources."” Eventually her brave attitude diminishes into a remarkable shot where she films her own apology (Ebert said, “I was reminded of explorer Robert Scott's notebook entries as he froze to death in Antarctica”).

At a time when digital techniques can show us almost anything, “The Blair Witch Project” is a reminder that what really scares us is what we can’t see. The noise in the dark is almost always scarier than what makes the noise in the dark. Any child will tell you that. Not that he believes that all the time.

This movie is either that you think is scary or think that it’s a cheap looking movie. For me, I go with one of the scariest movies I have seen, especially since when I saw it, I thought it was completely real. Then, my cousin said that everyone believed that until Heather was interviewed by Craig Kilborn back when he hosted “The Late, Late Show.” Now, I would say that you should definitely check this movie out because I think you will like it.

If you can believe it, they actually made a sequel to this movie. How did this movie leave us on any note that there would be a sequel? That is beyond belief. Which is why we have come to the 2000 sequel, “Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2.”

Ebert started his review out by saying, “To direct a sequel to their phenomenal "Blair Witch Project," Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez made an unexpected choice: Joe Berlinger, co-director of the documentaries "Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills" and "Paradise Lost 2: Revelations." Those two films make a persuasive case that three innocent young men from Arkansas are in prison, one on Death Row, because of local hysteria over teenagers who wear black and listen to heavy metal music. Meanwhile, a person who seems to be the real killer does all but confess on camera.”

Ebert then goes on to say, “The movies are deadly serious because they make the case that injustice is being done. Lives are at stake. I wondered earlier why Berlinger would want to make a fiction film on witchcraft and black magic, but suspended judgment: He is one of the best documentarians around. But now that I've seen "Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2," I'm disturbed.”

The movie shows no special coming that made it necessary for Berlinger to direct it. It’s confused, sometimes-atmospheric effort that could have come from many filmmakers. At the same time, because of the loaded characters and dialogue, “Blair Witch 2” gives ammunition to think the Arkansas prisoners are guilty. Ebert said, “I can imagine a preacher thundering from his pulpit: "This Berlinger comes down here and makes a couple of propaganda films making us look bad, and then what does he do? Makes a film glorifying black magic and witches."” If the film had argued against the attitude that basically trapped the West Memphis Three, that would be one thing. However, it doesn’t. This is not one of the Joe Berlinger’s proudest days.

However, what about the movie itself – apart from Berlinger’s involvement? It opens nicely as a documentary about the effect that the first movie had on the (fictional) town of Burkittsvile, MD, where the Blair Witch was rumored to disturb the nearby woods. Tourists have descended on the town, locals are on eBay selling stick-figures like those in the movie, and the frustrated local sheriff tours the woods with a bullhorn, shouting, “Get out of these woods and go home! There is no Blair Witch!” We meet a group of Witch fans who have signed up for an overnight tour in the woods. The Blair Witch Hunt, as it is called, is led by a tour guide, played by Jeff Donovan, who, we will learn, is a former mental patient, and now recovered, apparently. Others include Erica, played by Erica Leerhsen, a witch who practices Wicca, which is the white-magic form of witchcraft. Stephen (Stephen Barker Turner) and his girlfriend, the pregnant Tristen (Tristen Skylar), who are writing a book on the madness caused by the film, and Kim (Kim Director), who dresses in black and says, in an indirect reference to the “Paradise Lost” movies, “Where I come from, people believe because I dress in black, I’m some kind of killer.” (In keeping with the “Blair Witch” pseudo-realistic approach, all of the actors play characters who have their names.) The group pushes into the woods, where they begin to argue about their different advances to the experience. Ebert admitted, “I liked Erica's cautionary Wiccan lore: "The first rule of Wicca is, do no harm, because whatever you do will come back to you threefold." This sounds like "Pay It Forward" in reverse.” Soon they have an argument with another tour group, which leads to an unsuccessful shoving match. The other group is advised to look out Coffin Rock, with deadly results, and eventually the sheriff, played by Lanny Flaherty, gets involved, and the movie intercuts interrogation parts as the Witch Hunt group is tested by the law.

Like the first movie, this one has two visual styles (but not nearly as much of that hand-held photography that forced some regulars to recycle their popcorn bags). Most of it is in 35mm. The rest is video footage shot by the main characters. The 35mm footage may or may not exactly reflect how the characters remember what happened. The video footage may or may not be an objective record of some of the same events. Also…is there really a Blair Witch? The answer, if any, may come in “Blair Witch 3,” which has fallen into development the moment it was thought up.

“Book of the Shadows: Blair Witch 2” is a not a very clear piece of filmmaking (and contains no Book of Shadows). Ebert said, “I suppose it seems clear enough to Berlinger, who co-wrote it and helped edit it, but one viewing is not enough to make the material clear, and the material is not intriguing enough, alas, to inspire a second viewing.” The characters are not strongly and colorfully established, there is no convincing story line, and what planet does that sheriff comes from? He breaks the reality with every appearance.

“The Blair Witch Project” was perhaps one of a kind. Ebert said, “Its success made a sequel inevitable, but this is not the sequel, I suspect, anyone much wanted.” The opening scenes – the documentary showing the townspeople affected by the first film – is a more promising approach, because instead of trying to repeat the same thing, it goes outside the first film and makes its own style.

In the end, do not see the sequel. It’s one of the worse sequels ever made, and it clearly shows. There is nothing in this movie that is likable, but instead makes you scratch your head and think why it was made. No one should ever think about seeing such a horrendous sequel that is just made for people to make money.

Thank goodness that is out of the way. Heads up: I’m going to see the new “Goosebumps” movie later today, so you will get a review tonight. Stay tuned!

E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial and It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

The camera pans across a starry sky so clear that it has the power to put you in the regions of the galaxies. When you are lying on the grass and looking up at the night sky, you feel as if you were dropping upward through space. The camera slowly drops to Earth to come to lie on a spaceship, its lights in flames, comfortably settled in a clearing in a California forest. Small, Munchkin-sized creatures, whose stomachs light on and off exactly like fireflies, attend to their duties of gathering samples of Earth rocks and plant life.

Suddenly the aliens sense that they are about to be noticed. The alarm goes off. Vincent Canby says, “It's everyone back on board for an emergency takeoff that, unfortunately, leaves one crew member behind, marooned on a strange planet, without a friend to his generic name.”

This is the supernatural opening to Steven Spielberg’s “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” an enchanted fantasy about the relationship of E.T. and the realistic, halt 10-year-old boy, Elliot, played by Henry Thomas, who discovers the scared alien in the tool shed, becomes friends with him and hides him in his bedroom.

With the best of intentions and the teamwork of his older brother, Michael (Robert Macnaughton), and his younger sister, Gertie (Drew Barrymore), Elliott tries to help and to control E.T., who, despite he’s only a little taller than a coffee table, is both civilized and learned. More than anything else, the patient, gentle-natured E.T. wants to go home.

“E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial,” which was released in 1982, has become a children’s classic of the space era. The film, directed by Spielberg and written by Melissa Mathison from an idea of Spielberg, freely reuses elements from all sorts of earlier children’s films, including “Peter Pan” and “The Wizard of Oz.” Canby said, “''E.T.'' is as contemporary as laser-beam technology, but it's full of the timeless longings expressed in children's literature of all eras.”

Spielberg and Mathison have taken the story of Dorothy and her anxious search for the unreliable Wizard of Oz and turned it around, to tell it from the point of view of the Scarecrow, the Cowardly Lion and the Tin Woodman. Dorothy has become E.T., Kansas is outer space, and Oz is a modern, middle-class real-estate development in California.

Canby noted, “''E.T.'' is not to be compared with Mr. Spielberg's ''Poltergeist,'' which is a child's ferocious nightmare recreated as a film. ''E.T.'' is a slick, spirited comedy about children's coping in a world where adults have grown up and away from innocence.” Elliott, Michael, Gertie and their friends must protect E.T. from their police, who are trying to catch E.T. to study him, to give him to all sorts of unspeakable tests and, possibly, to dissect him like a frog.

It’s not difficult to trick Elliott’s mother, Mary, played by Dee Wallace. She is a loving parent but so busy by her recent separation from her children’s father that when E.T. shakes across the kitchen, she doesn’t see him. It’s more difficult outsmarting the Government security people, who have somehow gotten wind of E.T.’s presence. Canby is right when he says, “Then, too, there's E.T.'s terrible homesickness, which has all of the symptoms of a terminal disease.”

Spielberg may not have photographed “E.T.” entirely at a child’s eye-level, but the film gives that impression. It’s a smart film without being too smart, even if the children, when alone, talk a lot more obscenely than many parents would be happy to hear.

The problems faced by Elliott, E.T. and the others are mostly funny ones. How to get E.T. out of the house, unseen, so that he can build a radar which is how he can communicate with his fellow aliens? The children wait until Halloween, throw a sheet over his head and lead him bravely through the front door. Once outside, E.T. finds the neighborhood alive with other creatures, some more familiar – children in costumes inspired by characters from “The Empire Strikes Back” – than others, children disguised as terrorists.

Canby said, “The most difficult problem is saving E.T.'s life, once the earth's polluted atmosphere has caught up with him, and just how this is accomplished, I'm not completely certain. There are some subtleties in the narrative toward the end that, I suspect, only a child will fully grasp.”

The special effects, including flights through the air on everyday bicycles, are beautifully realized. Canby said, “The best one of all is the E.T. itself, created by Carlo Rambaldi. E.T., who looks a lot like the creatures seen at the end of Mr. Spielberg's ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind,'' walks, talks, plays jokes, does tricks, gets tipsy and, at a crucial moment, even seems on the point of weeping a large, probably salt-free, tear.”

Canby had noted, “Mr. Thomas, Mr. Macnaughton and Miss Barrymore give most appealing, modest performances of the sort we now associate with children in Spielberg films, especially with Cary Guffey in ''Close Encounters of the Third Kind.''”

A couple of minor conditions: John William’s soundtrack music is beginning to sound just a little familiar, not all that different from the music he has done for “Star Wars,” “Close Encounters” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark,” among others. Also, at the end of the film, there is an all-out attack on the emotions that depends, it seems, more on the rising volume of this music than on the events shown. “E.T.” is good enough not to have to alternate to such tricks.

In the end, if you haven’t seen this movie, you have been missing out. This is one of the most beloved movies ever made, and you have to see it. If you have kids, you can watch it with them and you will love it along with the kids. Especially with the most memorable line, “E.T. phone home.” Watch out though, because the scene where E.T. almost dies is probably the most emotional scene for any kid to watch. I admit I felt like I was getting teary-eyed and chocked up when I saw that part. Don't feel bad if you felt like you were going to get emotional at that part, because that's exactly how I felt.

Now I would stop right here, but I saw, quite possibly, the best TV special ever yesterday. That is the 1966 classic, “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown.”

As we all know, Easter has a bunny, Christmas has Santa, and Valentine has Cupid, so it would only make sense that Halloween would have its own mythical character to bring great joy, wouldn’t it? According to Linus, voiced by Christopher Shea: yes. “It’s the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown!” may not be one of the better Charlie Brown specials but it sure is a great celebration of not just the autumn season, but of Halloween and what a little belief in the tradition can do to a little child. It’s also one of the better animation jobs from the late Bill Melendez. Linus believes in the Great Pumpkin, a mysterious Halloween figure that brings presents on Halloween Night at the local pumpkin patch.

He makes a great argument for the creature likening him to Santa, and saying that he’s the lesser known of the holiday characters, which makes for a funny argument between him and Charlie Brown, voiced by Peter Robbins. He has so much faith, he’s willing to sacrifice Trick-or-Treat to wait for the arrival of the Great Pumpkin. Meanwhile, we learn the pros and cons of the kids Halloween celebration, including their Trick-or-Treating habits and what luck Charlie Brown has when it comes to candy. His recurring line, “I got a rock” makes for some very laugh tempting material when you consider how many rocks come his way in his life.

Linus’s story is probably the most forceful because his faith in the Great Pumpkin is similar to Schulz’s faith in his God. Felix Vasquez concluded his review by saying, “It doesn’t matter if he exists or not, he just believes in him and his essence, and that’s enough to make some sacrifices. I’m surprised to say that the one caveat is Snoopy’s (Melendez) sub-plot that just feels like padding because it has almost nothing to do with the central plot, but Linus’s general disappointment in the lack of the Great Pumpkin speaks waves about religion and Schulz’s potential doubt in the belief.”

In the end, if you haven’t seen “It’s the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown,” then make sure to record it on your TV if it ever airs again. If not, find it and watch it because this is the best Halloween TV special ever to air and one of the best Peanuts movies ever. I would say this is one of my favorite Halloween specials. You will love it, I promise you.

Stay tuned tomorrow when I look at another creepy movie for “Halloween Month.”