Marmaduke Grove

Sokurov is alone in the universe of known-to-me filmmakers in that he comes up with wonderful ideas for movies but is terrible at making the movies themselves (for a demonstration of both, see especially Russian Ark). So much so, in fact, that letting someone tell you the central concept of a Sokurov movie is pretty much the same experience as watching the movie, except, of course, for the duration. On the one hand, that's good, because very few people can come up with a truly poignant movie concept. On the other, it's bad, well, because the movie itself is.

So what is the central concept of this movie that's so wonderful you say? It is this: that Hitler, Goebbels and the rest of the Nazi high command were just people, and not particularly extraordinary or intelligent people, either.

Some of you will go "no f***ing kidding!" but really, that's something that is forgotten too easily and is a frightening fact. The atrocities of the Great War and Holocaust are somewhat explainable if one considers Hitler to be an insane genius, a man of pure evil. To see him as a dumb short guy who likes to get his belly poked by fat blond women, well, that's much scarier, because then how do you explain that this man caused the deaths of tens of millions of people? The thought is a harrowing one, but it is immediately understandable in the movie, and so there's no real reason for about 100 of the 108 minutes of its length.

Moloch is the cinematic equivalent of a post-it memo to yourself that you wrote some time ago and see just in time to act upon its instructions. If you remembered the contents, you're annoyed at having wasted the time to write (watch) something so obvious. If you didn't, you're very thankful for the note, and yet annoyed at yourself for needing the note in the first place.

So should you see this movie? Not if you've read my review or had someone tell you the gist of it. If not, it is necessary, if boring viewing.

Surprising absolutely nobody on this planet, this film is in fact very similar to the Fellowship film. On the plus side, it's got all it's strengths (CGI, New Zealand, mostly wonderful acting, New Zealand, length, costumes, music, etc. etc.) On the minus side, it's got most of its weaknesses (mainly the kinda hokey medievalese dialogue, the weird pronunciation of the r's and Elijah Wood). So assuming you've seen the first one (and if you haven't, and haven't read it, you'll have absolutely no idea what the hell is going on) here are the major points of difference:

-The Sir Ians don't appear much in this one. Also Boromir doesn't, for obvious reasons. So, the three best actors are barely in the movie. Thankfully, Bernard Hill, who does Theoden, makes up for it with a great performance. And the drawing of poison scene with Theoden is one of the most imaginative in the film, which is saying a lot

-Gimli and Legolas aren't so gratingly annoying. Well, at least Legolas isn't. Gimli is comic-relief for some reason (although some of it is funny, like when he tells Aragorn "toss me!")

-Smeagol-Gollum. Oh, man, how wonderful is this? The Gollum is so fantastic, it kicks the proverbial ass of all previously created CGI characters (even the ones in the Final Fantasy movie). I don't know if Andy Serkis (who is billed in the role of Gollum) had a lot to do with his 'acting' but if he did, congratulations to him on a great performance, and if he didn't, well, it's kinda creepy that CG can make better actors than most people actors now.

-Rohan. Might as well be called 'The-Land-Where-All-Men-Look-Like-Chad-Kroeger-From-Nickelback.' Otherwise, however, it is superbly done in a true to Norse mythology style. The gloominess of the place is at times palpable.

-Meriadoc, Peregrin, Samwise actually get to do something in this movie. Which is great, 'cause it was a little bit annoying to me to see those three as bumbling idiots over and over again.

-Faramir. He's not a syrupy-sweet good guy in this one, unlike the book. Which I think is an excellent change, even though some say this is some sort of Tolkien blasphemy. Other changes from the book are also good (well, when they're changes. Straight omissions are a little harder to swallow, simply because one is interested 'how would they have done that?' even if it really wouldn't have mattered)

-Battle of Helm's deep. Overlong. Kinda boring for me. Yet no one can say this isn't a movie-making feat worth celebrating.

-Disjointedness. Good on one hand, as Elijah Wood isn't there so much. Bad on the other hands, since it can be confusing as to what is going on where

-Ents. There is a school of thought that says you can't help but screw up visualising ents. Although I disagree, this movie seems to give credence to that notion. How could people that did so well in other ways mess up so embarrassingly here? These ents are comic to me, when they're supposed to be majestic. I don't remember how it was described in the book, and maybe they stayed true to that description, but it just doesn't make sense to me for ents to be smaller than trees, two-footed and quick runners. I was disappointed that the Buckland and Old Forest scenes were omitted in the first one, but now I see why - they just don't do forests that well. It's kind of a shame, really.

Well, there you have it. I can't give it a ten, cause of the general hokeyness, and cause of the ents. A nine it is, then.

At first, I wasn't sure I liked this movie.

There was all this talk of Ben Kingsley breaking with his usual nice guy theme and playing an Oscar-nominatedly angry, abrasive, caustic, vitriolic, raging, (oh wait not raging, but you know what I mean: mad) individual who was unsettling and scary.

That leads one to thinking this movie is something sombre in emotion, with American-Beauty-like intensity paired with Soap Opera-like constant scream-argument-fest. Well, that's what I expected anyway.

Nah!

This movie is actually a very funny and British, it's like an intellectual version of Snatch, which, obviously, is awesome. Starting from the "Walking on the Beaches, looking at the peaches" refrain of the cheeky (heehee, I made a bad pun) "Peaches" song in the opening credits and ending with what is probably the greatest last line in movie history, this movie never slows down. And how could it? It's only 88 minutes long!

And Ben Kingsley IS great, once you realise he's playing a completely crazy lunatic, who's also not the sharpest bloke in the world. (whoo, I said bloke, aren't British people wonderful?). And Ray Winstone is also superb playing, ironically, a guy named Gal, in what, compared to Kingsley, at least, is an understated and lazy performance.

Okay, there's this whole robbery-scene which is neither funny nor poignant, but I suppose had to be there to make sure this was a crime-movie?

And then there's this (admittedly hilarious) running joke of two adults with British accents leading some of the most pristinely first-gradish arguments in the world by repeating the same thing over and over again (to illustrate, here are two snippets of dialogue:

1) -Yes -No! -Yes! -No! -Yes! -No! -Fat C**t! (okay, maybe that word isnt learned in first grade, but you know)

2) (Ben Kingsley) -No F***ing way No f***ing way No f***ing way No f***ing Way!)

Which although being extraordinarily funny when witnessed in the movie, does extend the movie to about twice its length if nothing was repeated. - Oh yeah, that reminds me, if bad words offend you, this movie sure will (I guess I just proved that, didn't I?) - but the variety! I mean, even 'ponce' is in there.

So, in summary, if nothing was repeated endlessly, this movie would be 50 minutes long - but not as funny. Ben Kingsley - bad in Gandhi (not to mention that it showcases how well Hollywood directors of the time thought of Indian actors - or for that matter even black actors), good here. Ray Winstone - good here. The Stranglers - make funny songs. Swearing - lots of it.

And possibly the greatest end line in movie-making.

Too bad I can't match it with a good review-ending line. But such is life.