Carnage To Catharsis The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 Is A Dismal End!

The Good: Moments of theme and performance, Special effects
The Bad: Unlikable or under-developed characters, Plot oscillates between predictable and undeveloped, Resolution
The Basics: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 puts to rest a series that managed to get produced at the right time . . . but will not satisfy serious film buffs.


When it comes to The Hunger Games, the truth is, the franchise did not particularly grab me. I was pretty much repulsed by The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) and while I liked Catching Fire (reviewed here!) well-enough, Mockingjay - Part 1 (reviewed here!) pretty much lost me. I just don't care about Panem. So, I was in no rush to run out and see The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2. But, with it being a holiday and me being on the road alone, I figured it was time to pay my Hunger Games dues and take in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2.

Right off the bat, I've not read the books upon which the films in The Hunger Games Saga were based. This is a pure review of the film and the movie confirmed what I suspected the moment I saw The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1: Part 1 should have ended the moment the rescued Peeta Mellark reached up and began struggling Katniss Everdeen. Instead, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 begins with the potential of a young woman literally finding her voice and then rising up to raise a rebellion; instead, it is a movie about a mediocre woman using violence to solve her problems. Katniss Everdeen is supposed to be the hero fans root for, but Finnick made more substantive leaps in exposing the corruptions of President Snow, tyrant leader of Panem, in the prior film. Katniss does not follow Finnick's example in using logic, truth, and helping to turn the people of Panem against the corrupt President; as in the prior films, she mopes around until she shoots her problems away with her bow.

Having rescued Peeta from the Capitol, the rebels in District 13 are horrified to see how he has been brainwashed into an animal, intent on killing Katniss. Katniss, however, fights to keep Peeta alive and she is eager to end the conflict with Snow by getting support from other Districts. Her first attempt to shoot a propaganda film amid revolutionaries and refugees ends up with her getting shot. With the rebellion apparently crumbling, President Snow starts to weed out those close to him who might be political rivals, using poison like Finnick previously revealed. Despite being loathed now by Peeta, Katniss tries desperately to save him and be close to him, even though he is still violent from the venom that was used on him by the Capitol.

After Annie and Finnick marry, Katniss joins the squad being sent into the Capitol to disarm the traps that Snow has set. En route to Snow's mansion, Katniss and her companions are beset by creatures, weapons, and obstacles - much like the victors of the Hunger Games encountered during the games - and from Peeta's inability to control himself or overcome his programming. But as the resistance nears victory, Katniss gets information that suggests to her that Snow might not be the only villain in Panem and when someone close to Katniss is murdered as part of political theater, Katniss decides she alone must end it.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 failed to do what I've been waiting for in all of the films in The Hunger Games Saga: it did not make me care about the characters or Panem. Yes, oppression is absolutely terrible, but Panem in the films of The Hunger Games is a fiefdom of Districts serving the Capitol at a cost of two lives per District per year (one for the victor's district). The system has been working for 74 years at the beginning of The Hunger Games and, substantively, it is analogous to an unrestrained Capitalist system with an authoritarian government, so it was a hard dystopia for me to get into or care about (we have it as bad in real life; we just get to go to the movies and get a new smartphone once in a while). The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 fails to make the viewer invested in the world of Panem.

Even worse, in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 it is almost impossible to care what becomes of the film's protagonist. There is no allegory in the film, so Katniss heals until she acts, mopes until she rages and the journey is unsatisfying . . . especially when one considers it without the "wow" factor of the special visual effects. Add to that, the love triangle where Katniss's heart is pulled by both Gale and Peeta is expanded in The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2, which feels like a time drain in an already packed film. The love triangle could have been left out and perhaps a scene could have been put in where Katniss sees evidence of the film's other primary villain, as opposed to simply taking other people's words for it.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 is notable in its underuse of performers Jena Malone (who, frankly, I can always stand to see more of in films) and Stanley Tucci. Elizabeth Banks plays Effie Trinket with less of an annoying quality than in the prior installment, so at least her talents are not as wasted this time around.

Ultimately, though, the time is wasted. Who lives? Who dies? It doesn't matter, so long as there's an Evangelical-friendly scene to cap off the movie with utter denial of the initial characterizations of the characters the corniest summing up of the events of the Saga. That, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 absolutely has.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
SPECTRE
Bleeding Heart
Hotel Transylvania 2

3.5/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

R.I.P. Leonard Nimoy: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers Holds Up Surprisingly Well!

The Good: Engaging plot, Decent direction, Interesting characters
The Bad: Obviously dated and derivative, Somewhat overbearing soundtrack elements
The Basics: Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is appropriately creepy and holds up surprisingly well, despite being a fairly formulaic science fiction horror film!


Like so much of the world, yesterday, I was saddened to learn of the death of Leonard Nimoy. I was saddened, but not surprised that Nimoy died given his health problems. Leonard Nimoy was a childhood hero of mine for his portrayal of Spock in Star Trek (reviewed here!) and the first (of several) times that I met him, it was such a big deal for me that I wrote a short story about it. Given my appreciation of the works of Leonard Nimoy (and liking how very cool he was in real life!), there were remarkably few works of his for me to watch and review in order to pay tribute to him. But, today I discovered that he was in the 1978 remake of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers.

I remember seeing the original 1950s version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers back when I was a kid (my father started getting out all manner of classic science fiction films from the local library when the family got a VCR and the 1956 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers was one of them!). The 1978 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers has a virtually identical plot, but is updated with characters and a sense of style, location, and period that is VERY 1970s. This version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers might not be the most original conceptual work, but it still has a high creep-out factor and has a cast that is suitably impressive. In addition to one of the most unsettling and obscure cameos by Robert Duvall, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers features Leonard Nimoy, Donald Sutherland, Veronica Cartwright, Jeff Goldblum and a time-travelling Sir Ian McKellen (at the party scene where Kibner is introduced, a post-X-Men Sir Ian McKellen can be clearly seen wearing at hat similar to the one he wore in X-Men).

San Francisco has experienced an influx of extraterrestrial pollen, which has begun developing on plants throughout the city into colorful red flowers. The Department of Health inspector, Matthew Bennell, is methodical and precise (and fairly dispassionate) and is going around the city doing his usual work inspecting local restaurants when his friend and co-worker, Elizabeth Driscoll, comes to him very concerned about her husband. Elizabeth insists that Geoffrey is not actually her husband and Bennell fears that she is simply paranoid. Driscoll follows her husband around town one day and sees him meeting with a wide variety of people who have no apparent connection to him, passing packages between them. The two, along with Jack Bellicec, meet with Bennell’s friend, prominent psychologist Dr. Kibner, who insists Driscoll is overreacting.

But soon, it becomes apparent to the logical Bennell that there is, in fact, something going on. Bellicec and his wife, Nancy, find a strange body at the baths at which she works. Bennell witnesses a similar mysterious, under-developed body at Driscoll’s home and realizes that these things are growing into people. Believing that people are being duplicated and replaced, Bennell and his friends try to alert the proper authorities, but those around them seem to be universally affected by the strange plants. With the bulk of the city succumbing to alien vegetable replication, Bennell and his friends race to escape the city and the parasites!

In addition to seeing Leonard Nimoy as the creepy, 1970’s self-help dialogue-spewing Dr. Kebner, there was a high degree of excitement for me in seeing Donald Sutherland in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers. Sutherland has virtually the same role in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers as he had in Robert A. Heinlein’s The Puppet Masters (reviewed here!), which I grew up on! Despite the dated qualities, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is very successful at what it sets out to do.

First, the characters tend to react like very real people. Bennell wants to help Driscoll, so he takes her to a psychiatrist friend of his. Dr. Kebner is instantly skeptical of Driscoll’s claims that people aren’t who they say they are. The scientists in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers do not instantly have all the answers, but people like Driscoll and Bennell approach the problem with a scientific and methodical methodology. That makes all the characters, despite the fantastic circumstances, pop with a sense of realism that most contemporary films lack.

On the acting front, Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is good. Donald Sutherland, Brooke Adams, Leonard Nimoy and Art Hindle are all wonderful. Veronica Cartwright does a decent job of playing Nancy, though there is little differentiation between her character in this and in Alien (reviewed here!). Jeff Goldblum, who appears in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers as Jack, clearly grew into looking good (he’s scrawny in this).

Even the pod people in Invasion Of The Body Snatchers have some development and philosophy, which makes them better-than-average invader adversaries. It is worth noting that this version of Invasion Of The Body Snatchers is a pre-PG-13 PG. In other words, it has some more graphic elements that parents might not want their children exposed to (most notably a skull being beaten in like a pumpkin).

Invasion Of The Body Snatchers might be a remake, but it is creepy and well-executed and it is easy to see why someone like Leonard Nimoy would take a role in it!

For other tributes, please check out my reviews of:
Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (Bob Hoskins)
The Fisher King (Robin Williams)
A Late Quartet (Philip Seymour Hoffman)

7/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2015 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

An Illustration Of Consequences For Those Who Do Not Understand Nuance: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1.

The Good: Themes, Decent use of the expanded cast
The Bad: Unlikable characters, Plot is more set-up than substance
The Basics: More a tease for the final installment, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is thematically heavy-handed and the film is surprisingly easy to skip!


Despite the fact that my review of Catching Fire (that’s here!) remains one of my most-read reviews, I am not what one might call an enthusiast of The Hunger Games franchise. In fact, when the cinematic rendition of The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) was released, I argued that even reviewing it was utterly pointless; the novel series had such a huge fanbase and Lionsgate had thrown so much advertising at the undecided masses that it was going to be a huge phenomenon regardless of critical analysis. At this point, there is little purpose to bothering to review The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1, either, except for those who might have soured on the franchise from the first two films and need a reason to go and see it or skip it.

My vote is actually in the “skip it” category. Not since 28 Weeks Later (reviewed here!) has there been such an unnecessary sequel. The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is entirely a transition movie and given where it begins (desperately hinging on seeing Catching Fire) and where is ends (with, presumably*, the initiating incident which will finally crystallize the budding rebellion in the world of Panem), it seems like it would be virtually impossible to watch The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 when it is released next year and not get everything that happens in Part 1 from context clues. Seriously; if anyone out there is on the fence and willing to try, I’d love to be proven right on this one! The reason for this is simple: despite the influx of characters into the universe of The Hunger Games, the ones who survive The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 are only incrementally moved in this film. And, on the plot front, what events do occur in the film have ramifications that will undeniably be self-evident in the second part . . . and the rest is just a dressed up version of what we saw in Catching Fire. [* I wrote “presumably” because I have not read the books, so perhaps the final film will take an abrupt right turn from the direction it has been going for the past three films, though I doubt it!]

The 28 Weeks Later analogy is not an inapt one; where 28 Days Later described the horror of uninfected people fleeing crowds of infected individuals and left it up to the viewer, like the protagonist of the film, to grasp the level of horror and change in the world, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 illustrates over and over and over again what Catching Fire began and showed quite enough of. In Catching Fire, President Snow’s tenuous grasp over the 12 Districts of Panem is slipping and he sends in faceless soldiers into the Districts to do things like beat insubordinate old men to death and shoot rebels and menace crowds with firearms just off camera from televised events. We get it; people are rebelling, Snow’s forces are pretty mercilessly killing them. When that, and the 75th Annual Hunger Games, fail utterly, Snow uses his military to bomb Katniss Everdeen’s home district right off the map. We get it.

So, where Catching Fire unfortunately repeated the plot conceit of The Hunger Games for its latter half, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 browbeats the audience with repetition of Snow’s desperate attempts to retain power and control over the districts that pay tribute to his Capital. Where Catching Fire had an old man getting his head blown off, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 ups the stakes with a line-up of children. Snow, apparently, is not the only one too stupid to realize that if fear failed to keep people in line, more fear won’t stop the rebellious forced; director Francis Lawrence and the screenwriters assume the audience needs to see more and more violent incidents to understand that.

We don’t.

Following her arrival in the subterranean District 13, Katniss Everdeen learns that the world of Panem is on the edge of full-scale revolution. Despite District 12 being obliterated, Katniss’s losses are remarkably small; she is reunited with her sister and Gale in District 13. There, she meets District 13’s “President,” Alma Coin. Coin and Plutarch Heavensbee want Katniss to become the symbolic leader of the revolution, a figurehead that will galvanize their movement. But Katniss is frustrated and determined that Peeta be rescued from the clutches of President Snow. When Peeta, who was captured after the arena was destroyed during the climax of the last Hunger Games, is shown on broadcasts as enemies to the Rebellion, Katniss is convinced that Peeta has been brainwashed and must be saved.

In exchange for committing forces to a rescue operation, Katniss allows Coin and Heavensbee to use her for their own propaganda machine. The result is a conflict that does not climax, a character whose heroic journey is stalled, and a film that seems much more like filler than flash.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 is thematically unsettling in that protagonist Katniss Everdeen, who worked very hard to resist being a part of Snow’s propaganda machine in the prior installment, is willing to be a part of Coin’s media blitz against Snow in this one. Either way, she’s just a tool and like Snow menacing her family in exchange for her campaigning and illustrating love for Peeta, Coin withholds resources to rescue Peeta until Katniss commits to help her cause.

Unfortunately, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 flops even more in-context of the larger Saga . . . for anyone who has a memory. Katniss Everdeen didn’t love Peeta in The Hunger Games, she did not particularly love him in Catching Fire (though she was protective of him). In Mockingjay – Part 1, Katniss is more obsessed with saving Peeta without having an emotional connection to him to back that up. Katniss seemed happiest in District 12 when she was with Gale and now she and Gale could be together; from the moment Peeta first appears in Mockingjay – Part 1, the damage he can do is done. He is Snow’s mouthpiece. For a character who has no genuine love for him, assassination should bear the same emotional effect as rescue (a loss to a rebel is a loss to a rebel; how one commits resources says a lot). In the simplest possible terms, Katniss feels more like she is going through the motions with pushing for a rescue attempt as opposed to a character who has a heartfelt love and genuinely likes the guy she is concerned with.

To that end, Jennifer Lawrence does what she can with the role that spends much more time being passive and lackluster than truly compelling. Katniss Everdeen is barely the hero in the process of becoming, as opposed to the “political pawn who realizes she’s actually a rook;” Lawrence has very little she can do with such a limited character.

The rest of the cast is as good as the writing allows them to be. Josh Hutcherson may be bland as a love interest, but as a brainwashed figurehead delivering Snow’s talking points, he seems to have found his niche. Jenna Malone’s time on screen makes no real use of the actress's talents; her character is an afterthought and her appearance is little more than a cameo near the climax of the film. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Woody Harrelson, and Donald Sutherland each return to their roles flawlessly. Julianne Moore, Mahershala Ali, and Robert Knepper join the cast and integrate well. Moore is given the most screentime of the new arrivals and she is exactly what she needs to be in order to sell the character of President Coin. She is dignified enough to be realistically presidential and she delivers the character’s strategies with a sense of pragmatism that makes her a good embodiment of a rebel. While Jeffrey Wright is simply continuing his role of Beetee, he is a pleasure to watch; the part of the intellectual with a grasp of both physical and political sciences suits him well.

Ultimately, though, none of the performances are so superlative that they become the “must see” embodiment of any of the actors’ talents, the characters are not drastically transformed in a way that the next film would not have to say (yet again) what happened to them and the themes are nothing new to the audience of the first two The Hunger Games. The result is a film that may be very safely skipped.

For other films currently in theaters, please check out my reviews of:
To Write Love On Her Arms
The Seventh Son
Paddington
Inherent Vice
Selma
Still Alice
Predestination
The Interview
The Hobbit: The Battle Of The Five Armies
Expelled
Annie
Comet
Horrible Bosses 2
10,000 Days
Interstellar

4/10

For other movie reviews, please check out my Film Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Art, Automatons, Loneliness, Nudity: The Best Offer Is Worth Watching, But Hard To Get Excited For Watching Again!

The Good: Decent acting, Wonderful directing, Interesting characters
The Bad: Slow build-up to a stark resolution
The Basics: The Best Offer is a smart film that builds up to a reversal in the final fifteen minutes that makes perfect sense, but still feels surprisingly unsatisfying for all that precedes it.


As the new year begins, I find myself starting the year with independent cinema, as opposed to the current blockbusters. I’m not sure what I expected when I sat down to watch The Best Offer, I suppose I was secretly hoping to discover this year’s The Red Violin (reviewed here!), but what I found was very much the archetype of a foreign independent film. Indie films tend to be broken down (by me, at least) into two groups: professionally-made movies that have an decidedly artistic bent whereby they work to make a statement using the full artistry of film or small films by virtually unknown producers/directors/actors/writers that are produced inexpensively and illustrate the gumption and fortitude of those involved by bucking the studio system without any real hope of breakout success. The Best Offer is certainly the former; it is a beautifully-shot, well-acted movie, but one that has very limited appeal and is geared toward those who enjoy thought-provoking works, mood and style, as opposed to those looking for a story where events occur in a timely manner.

From the outset, the conceits in The Best Offer, which is a moody drama from writer/director Giuseppe Tornatore, are evident: Oldman is superstitious and loathes mobile phones. How those conceits will play out when the film’s protagonist is revealed to be a scammer and as he begins developing a relationship with the reclusive Claire Ibitsen makes the film engaging enough to stick with, despite the tone and how long it takes for the mysteries in the movie to actually get established.

Virgil Oldman is an appraiser and auctioneer, the owner of the Oldman’s auction house. Aging and lonely, he is very superstitious and on his birthday has to take the first call of the day he receives. That puts Claire directly in contact with the reclusive auctioneer and Oldman makes an uncharacteristic trip out to visit her parent’s estate to appraise their furniture. Oldman is not entirely above board; he uses his friend Whistler to buy seemingly worthless pieces through the auction house when Oldman recognizes them as lost greats. In that fashion, he has assembled a significant private gallery of portraits. Investigating the run-down Ibbetson Estate, Virgil meets with Fred the housekeeper, and inspects the mansion full of relics.

After bribing Fred for information on Claire and having discovered some intriguing mechanical pieces at the Ibbetson Villa, Virgil is surprised when Claire withdraws her willingness to have Oldman appraise her parents’ estate. When Whistler falls down on a bid and Robert, the mechanical genius who appraises and restores some of Oldman’s finds for him, discovers that gears that Oldman found at the Villa belong to an 18th Century android, Virgil is drawn into the mystery of who Claire is and what her house possesses.

Virgil Oldman is almost instantly characterized as extremely observant and that makes The Best Offer full of intrigue from the outset, despite not much actually happening. Thus, Oldman’s noticing gears around the Villa and stealthily removing them, creates a sense of mystery long before Robert and Virgil realize what they are building. Like so many independent films, The Best Offer is much more concerned with mood and character than with plot development, so the slow unfolding of the relationship between Virgil and Claire is much more what the film is about than the work of Robert (restoring the automaton) or the scams Virgil and Whistler run on Oldman’s clients.

Much of The Best Offer becomes a waiting game for the revelation of what Claire actually looks like and in the process, the movie treads toward the unfortunately familiar. When Virgil breaks down and activates the mobile phone that was gifted to him, the dialogue is very on-the-nose. Oldman is metaconscious in a way that works more from those evaluating the piece, as opposed to coming from a character. Virgil describing himself as rusty and broken is not presented as realistic dialogue.

As well, the smart viewer continues to watch The Best Offer waiting for how the revelation will come and wondering why Virgil Oldman does not get there first. Oldman scours the Ibbetson Villa for pieces of the Automaton and it becomes clear very early on that Claire is leaving the pieces scattered around the Villa to find them. Throughout the process of appraising the objects in the Villa, Claire is leaving the objects for him to find, while Oldman delivers her papers to sign and asks her to trust him. So, Claire and the viewer know Oldman is untrustworthy, but he seems surprised when she resists getting closer to him and trusting his professional opinions after a point.

Geoffrey Rush is characteristically brilliant as Virgil Oldman. When he is not simply reprising his role from The King’s Speech (reviewed here!), Rush is delightfully withdrawn and standoffish. When Oldman becomes stressed enough to start sweating and actually removes his gloves, the performance is unlike anything Rush has done in recent memory. When Rush and Sylvia Hoeks (Claire) have their first inevitable onscreen meeting, Tornatore captures the moment brilliantly. Tornatore uses space brilliantly in the subsequent scene; Claire is treated as another object Oldman covets and the remainder of the film has Rush evolving Oldman into a more human character who struggles to relate to Hoeks’s Claire. Rush is smart enough to make the evolution take enough time to be realistic. He slowly softens his body language and the expressiveness of his eyes.

One of the surprises for me in The Best Offer was Jim Sturgess. Sturgess plays Robert as a smart, creative restoration artist who is completely credible. The supporting role is nowhere near as dynamic as, for example, his role in One Day (reviewed here!), but he still has a strong screen presence and makes his scenes seem instantly significant. Sturgess has a greater role than Donald Sutherland and in The Best Offer he uses the time he has on screen to make the character so many orders more significant than Sutherland, completely stealing the more established actor’s thunder in the movie. In fact, it is Sturgess who pounds home one of the film’s most important lines by delivering it with much more subtlety than one might expect when Robert asks Oldman which he would choose: Claire or the automaton.

The Best Offer is the first film I have seen with Sylvia Hoeks and she is good as Claire. She has the tough task of creating a viable character with her voice alone, as opposed to with any physical presence. Hoeks does a good job and when she is brought on-screen, she manages to be more than just a pretty face. Hoeks has enough gravitas on screen that when Claire goes missing, there is a powerful feeling of loss in the movie; the viewer listens desperately for a hint of her voice and that plays out well under the direction of Tornatore.

Guiseppe Tornatore is an impressive writer and director and The Best Offer looks wonderful, even when it feels slow. The film is characterized by beautiful sets, crisp contrasts in colors (especially black on the stark white European restaurants at the film’s outset) and impressive sound design. But Tornatore keeps shifting what the movie is, which makes it harder to keep engaged. The film builds as a character drama while dabbling in various mysteries, without any one of the conspiratorial elements truly landing. Is the movie building up to a betrayal by Whistler or Robert? How will Claire react to Oldman’s deception in having the automaton rebuilt? The divergence with Claire going missing, all of these fail to have a strong sense of cohesion, despite the fact that The Best Offer maintains a very tight focus on Virgil Oldman.

Ultimately, The Best Offer is good – well acted, intriguing enough, beautifully shot – but it does not resonate after one is done watching it. Having spent two hours with Virgil Oldman on his weird adventure with antiquities and romance, that’s enough; it’s hard to want to rewatch the film, no matter how masterfully it was created and presented.

For other works with Donald Sutherland, please check out my reviews of:
The Hunger Games: Catching Fire
The Hunger Games
Horrible Bosses
Reign Over Me
Ask The Dust
Pride & Prejudice
Cold Mountain
Robert A. Heinlein's The Puppet Masters
Buffy The Vampire Slayer
Ordinary People

7.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2014 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Why Catching Fire Is Worth Watching (When The Hunger Games . . . Not So Much)!

The Good: Good story, Decent use of themes, Generally good acting, Decent effects
The Bad: Characters still fall a little flat
The Basics: Rectifying many of the issues that made The Hunger Games not worth watching, Catching Fire becomes a Fall film worth tuning in to!


Lionsgate has made a huge mistake. I write that as someone who is not a fan of The Hunger Games Trilogy, despite the fact that my wife has now read all three books. I was not impressed by The Hunger Games (reviewed here!) and I have noticed that the merchandising for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire has been pretty anemic. In fact, outside the limited edition Hallmark Mockingjay ornament (reviewed here!), Catching Fire has not had a big pre-release push on the merchandising front. There seems to be a good reason for that: Catching Fire is a far more cerebral film than its predecessor and a far better one.

That leads me to my opening assertion: Lionsgate has made a terrible mistake. I was not a fan of The Hunger Games but I get how Lionsgate felt compelled to make the movie and make it first. Viewers needed to be introduced to the universe of The Hunger Games and understand the brutal methods of power and control utilized by the Presidents of Panem, including the current one, Snow. But when my wife finished reading the books, she noted that Catching Fire was the longest of the books and she complained that nothing much happened in Mockingjay. The mistake Lionsgate made: cramming everything from the second book into a single movie. Instead of breaking the final book into two films, the second book has a very natural break in it that could have made it a far better movie. This is a film with a lot crammed into it.

As it stands, though, Catching Fire is ambitious, generally smart, and well-presented, living up beyond the potential of The Hunger Games to make for a vastly superior film. Unlike the first film, which essentially made the audience into the citizens of the corrupt Panem, rooting for Katniss Everdeen to slay her child opponents in a bizarrely orchestrated bloodsport, Catching Fire exposes the movement throughout Panem that is leading to a genuine revolution. For half the film, the consequences of the corruption embodied by President Snow is explored and the viewer is given a fairly decent (and entertaining) civics lesson on the power of the individual and the methods employed by corrupt individuals in the highest levels of government. The allegory is strong and worthwhile and it makes most of Catching Fire worthwhile. The latter half of Catching Fire develops nicely as a story of sacrifice and rebellion realized; a story that would have carried more weight if some of the characters involved in making the sacrifices (and orchestrating the rebellion) were characters the viewer cared about more.

Catching Fire picks up where The Hunger Games left off. Having been triumphant dual survivors of the 74th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark have become symbols of defiance throughout the Districts of Panem. Katniss realizes this while on tour in District 11, where the child, Rue, she worked to protect in the Hunger Games hailed from. Having seen Katniss defy the rulemakers in the Hunger Games, by threatening to kill herself with Peeta at the climax and rob the government of a victor to trot around, Katniss has inspired the rebels scattered throughout Panem to openly engage the government forces. When Katniss learns that the previously-destroyed District 13 may not be the abandoned wasteland the government claims it is, she becomes even more sympathetic to the anti-government forces.

To stop the growing insurrection and to psychologically devastate the Districts of Panem, President Snow uses the 75th Annual Hunger Games as a way to dispatch of the troublesome Katniss, Peeta, and other prior victors at the Hunger Games who have symbolic value to the Districts and the Rebellion. Traumatized from the moment she is forced back into the games, Katniss works to keep Peeta alive. But soon, other contestants in the Games begin to ally themselves with Katniss and it becomes clear that Snow may have botched his attempt to stop the rebellion.

Right off the bat, it is worth noting that President Snow is one of the lesser villains of modern cinema. How a man who expects to rule with an iron fist using fear and ritualized demoralization does not see the potential of prior victors slugging it out as a bad idea seems particularly lame. For sure, Snow is getting some bad advice from the new Game’s Master, Plutarch Heavensbee. Heavensbee’s role in Catching Fire might go over the head of Katniss, but it is unlikely to stymie fans of science fiction or political dramas. While there is almost always a Brutus in a political drama, it weakens the Caesar of the work for them to be so blind to it. As a result, President Snow’s miscalculations in pitting former victors against each other (which basically puts the people who have been most traumatized by the system in one place for days on end and seems like it would do little outside inspire further acts of televised resistance) weaken the President of Panem.

For her part, Katniss Everdeen comes across as less whiny in Catching Fire than she did in The Hunger Games. A lot of the credit for this has to go to Jennifer Lawrence. Lawrence portrays Katniss as a young woman who is ignorant of political intrigue, as opposed to just stupid. Despite having the tactical wherewithal at the climax of The Hunger Games to extort the Capitol for her and Peeta’s lives, Katniss is still just an inexperienced young woman whose tactical abilities largely come from hunting. While that is an asset inside the games, it does not realistically prepare her for clandestine approaches from rebels and Lawrence walks the fine line that makes Katniss seem reasonably ignorant as opposed to laughably daft.

Unfortunately, Josh Hutcherson is still thoroughly white bread as Peeta Mellark and Liam Hemsworth’s Gale is presented with so little substance as to not make him a viable romantic interest for Katniss. Hutcherson’s presence in the movie is undermined by the far more dynamic Sam Claflin as Finnick. Finnick seems instantly more interesting than Peeta and where Peeta bumbles through the film, Finnick actually is presented with all the seeds of being an able leader. Claflin plays Finnick well and the onscreen magnetism he possesses serves the character well. Also noteworthy of the Catching Fire cast is Jena Malone. Malone manages to make the acerbic Johanna Mason seem unlike any of the meek roles she has played in the past and she plays the rougher edges in Mason without any sort of hints at her Sucker Punch (reviewed here!) character.

Before Catching Fire degenerates into the choreographed blood sport – though this time there is so much more going on inside the arena than simple survival that the audience does not fall into the trap of being like the citizens of Panem and there is little entertainment in the deaths in the arena – the film manages to captivate. As the story of sacrifice and rebellion grows, the viewer actually begins to care what might come of Panem, if not Katniss.

Catching Fire is a strong middle act and the struggle of the twelve (or thirteen) Districts against the oppressive Capitol seems crammed into a film that moves along at a decent pace, but glosses over some of the subtlety that might have made Panem one of the more interesting dystopian realms. As it stands, Catching Fire might have a problematic antagonist and an ally hampered by lackluster acting, but it progresses The Hunger Games Saga in a direction that is enough to make viewers want to see how the Rebellion fares. What might have made the Saga, and this installment, more compelling is a fundamentally more interesting protagonist. Jennifer Lawrence does what she can with Katniss Everdeen, but for the bulk of Catching Fire, viewers are rooting for a pawn and that’s not an enviable place for a storyteller to hinge their success, nor an audience to hang its hopes.

For other action/science fiction second act films, please check out my reviews of:
The Empire Strikes Back
The Hobbit: The Desolation Of Smaug
Thor: The Dark World

7.5/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2013 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Oppressive Mood Theater Continues With The Spoon-fed Reign Over Me!

The Good: Performances by the great cast, Compelling story, Use of mood
The Bad: Underdeveloped relationship between Alan and his wife, Spoonfeeds the important character elements, Lack of decent bonus features
The Basics: Despite a great start, this character-centered drama falls short when it tries to be something different and dumbs itself down for the audience.


There are a number of movies I have seen that begin with a great deal of potential only to fall flat in the middle and end. Usually, it comes from a setup that is extraordinary that ultimately falls flat. Movies that set themselves up for greatness, but then collapse away from that greatness leave me disappointed. Lately, it seems this happens most frequently with me when a movie dumbs itself down and makes what is implied more obvious. I like films that engage me and assume I am both intelligent and engaged.

The latest film to set itself up with intelligence and subtlety only to turn around and disappoint me in the latter portions is Mike Binder's Reign Over Me. What begins with promise degenerates into a film that sacrifices its potential and subtlety for explicit and obvious conflict that is nowhere near as engaging. Given the quality of the first half of the film, it is only that which keeps this from being both unwatchable and even making it to a cointoss for a "recommend/not recommend." Yes, as I begin this review, I'm not sure which way I'm falling yet.

While driving from his troubled dental practice one night, Alan Johnson sees his old college roommate, Charlie Fineman riding a Segue through the streets of New York City. Charlie, adorned with giant headphones, does not acknowledge Alan and a few weeks later when they run into one another, he does not seem to remember him. Charlie, exhibiting all of the signs of shellshock, slowly recalls Alan as his roommate and the two return to Charlie's apartment which he is in the process of redoing the kitchen of.

Soon, Alan is spending more and more time with Charlie, despite Charlie's occasional violent outbursts. This strains his marriage to his wife and she wonders why Alan is so obsessed with helping Charlie. While fighting a lawsuit from a woman who made a pass at him in his office, Alan struggles to get Charlie into counseling to deal with the trauma he is experiencing in regards to the loss of his wife and daughters.

Unfortunately, as the movie progresses, Reign Over Me becomes unsatisfied with being a struggle between one man and his sense of loss and another man's efforts to save him. It degenerates into a courtroom drama and a piece that attempts to add a dramatic tension outside the mood piece that makes it work successfully. But more than that, in its latter portion, it makes explicit the loss Charlie Fineman is experiencing and in the process, it dumbs down all that was clever about itself.

Writer and director Mike Binder, whose only other work I had seen before this was Man About Town (reviewed here!), scatters like breadcrumbs the allusions that Charlie's wife and daughters were aboard one of the planes that was hijacked and destroyed on September 11, 2001. Up until the moment that is actually spelled out for the viewer, the film is clever, smart and bold. The universal act of a survivor of the act of violence done against the nation is made as a very personal character struggle. We have not seen anything on those left behind before now and Binder starts it out as something clever and vital and heart wrenching. The moment it is made explicit and the courtroom drama that the movie descends into after that become something significantly less and it feels and views like simple, dull pandering. What was a character study is transformed into a political statement and the movie does not work on that front at all.

Reign Over Me works when it is a deeply personal story and Binder and his cast pull that off beautifully for a time. The conflict that arises from Alan and Janeane is oversimplified, but it acts as a foil to the conflict and struggles between Alan and Charlie. In other words, as Alan tries to intervene in Charlie's life and set him back on a path to normalcy, he does so at the expense of his relationship with his wife. Alan and Janeane share a very cold, rational marriage, whereas Charlie's wounds make him a very passionate - if completely dysfunctional - character. the magic of the contrast is lessened some in the latter portion of the film wherein Janeane is barely featured and the conflict between her and Alan is completely sublimated to the Charlie legal story.

Reign Over Me would be a far better movie if only it had continued with the two character struggles and worked harder to develop the two relationships that pull Alan in very different directions. Indeed, the peak of the movie is quite possibly the moment when Alan realizes that he is not happy in his marriage and that he is gaining some satisfaction out of trying to put Charlie's life back together. The consequences of that realization, though, fail to resonate when Charlie's in-laws pop back into the movie to cause him legal grief . . . for no good reason.

Reign Over Me also has decent use of music and a directoral style that Binder deserves some credit for. The film looks good and Charlie's obsession and connection to music allows for a decent soundtrack to arise from it. But more than the cinematography, it is the character depth that works, which makes it all the more disappointing when Binder surrenders to absurd plot elements to finish off the story.

Charlie's story is far too complex to be resolved through the forced conflict of the legal battle that ensues and that abrupt right turn in the movie leaves viewers with a sour taste in their mouth. Indeed, it is Charlie's complexity that leads to a mood that is dark and compelling throughout most of Reign Over Me. This is not an upper of a movie and Charlie's sullen and shell-shocked nature, combined with his occasional loud and angry outbursts, makes Reign Over Me a difficult movie to watch. That difficulty is mediated by the sense the viewer has that the film is going somewhere. Unfortunately, it gets lost along the way and when it gets lost, it gets lost in the tallest of the tall grasses.

As for the acting, much has been made of Adam Sandler's ability to perform in Reign Over Me. I assert that those who make a fuss over Sandler's performance as Charlie simply did not see his genius performance in Punch-Drunk Love (reviewed here!). In that, as in Reign Over Me, Sandler illustrates that he can be edgy, dangerous and still create a character that is not silly or stupidly crazy. Sandler's Charlie is deeply empathetic and pitiable and it is much of Sandler's work that makes him that way. Sandler - even in some of his more ridiculous comedies - has exhibited the ability to go from quiet to violently angry in the blink of an eye. So, when Charlie is provoked by difficult questions he does not want to answer, the performance Sandler gives is one that is shocking, but not when one considers the source. This is what Sandler is good at, arguably a master of.

The real acting genius in Reign Over Me comes from star Don Cheadle. Cheadle continues to impress as an actor who has great range and in this movie, he performs in a way I've not seen from him before. He easily emotes the strain in his character's marriage with minimal lines but explicit body language through the beginning of the movie. In his earliest scenes, Cheadle makes Alan seem henpecked and disinterested in the life he has through the way he moves more than anything his character says. This is almost the definition of great acting. Cheadle mirrors Sandler's ability to play a tormented character and in Reign Over Me the portrayal of lovelessness in contrast to loss of love is played out with genius by Sandler and Cheadle. Cheadle, though, provides an impossible-to-define solid quality that roots the viewer with Alan, despite his disaffected quality in his performance. It is Cheadle that makes the shaky end at all watchable with the compassion he portrays.

On DVD, Reign Over Me has remarkably few bonus features. There is a featurette on the making of the movie which is not incredible or memorable and a jam session with Sandler and Cheadle. The only other thing on the disc is a photo montage which seems somewhat pointless after watching the movie.

So, here at the end, I am left to consider the impression this left with me. Fans of drama will love the beginning; it is dark, murky and compelling. But the people to whom that appeals most will be disappointed when the film dumbs itself down in the middle and end. As a result, it's hard to recommend this for the buy.

For other films featuring Jada Pinkett Smith, please check out my reviews of:
The Women
The Matrix Revolutions
The Matrix Reloaded
Princess Mononoke

6/10

For other film reviews, please check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2008 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Cold Mountain Is Another Sad Southern Perspective On The Civil War

The Good: Peripheral characters and actors
The Bad: Dull leads, Boring story, Pacing
The Basics: Worthwhile only for the peripheral characters and actors, Cold Mountain is a long, disappointing Southern Civil War story.


Have you ever noticed how the majority of movies on the American Civil War take place from the Southern perspective? It's almost as if the South is obsessed with the Civil War and their loss that they just cannot get over it. Instead, they seek to recapture something from that time. Cold Mountain recaptures the oppression and ruthlessness of the South as it rebelled against the North.

In the little town of Cold Mountain, North Carolina, little southern belle Ada Monroe waits for her love Inman to return to her. While she waits, her home is menaced by Home Guard, the Southerners who didn't go off to fight "Northern Aggression" and instead stayed home and harassed the locals. Ada is aided by the appearance of Ruby Thewes, who helps her out around her property in exchange for room and board. Inman, for his part, becomes mortified by the killing on the front lines and heads home in a weird odyssey that is nowhere near as entertaining as, say, O Brother, Where Art Thou?

Cold Mountain suffers, first and foremost, by its cast. Jude Law, as appealing as he is supposed to be, is exceptionally bland and a pretty terrible actor. He wasn't charismatic in A.I. (reviewed here!), he's only vaguely interesting here. In fact, of the main three in the cast, Law is the high point. When he journey's home and looks rugged and bearded and un-Jude Law-like, his acting ability comes out and he is able to deliver some performances that are respectable, most notably the subtlety of his scene near the end where he turns back toward the road (to reveal more of the scene would expose more of the plot than you should know).

It is always a mystery to me how Best Supporting Actress is chosen. Rene Zellweger won the award for her performance in this and I was left thinking she had Kim Bassinger Syndrome. KBS is a rare affliction whereby an actress with a minimal role in a film somehow is granted great recognition for the role, when it was relatively minor (like Kim Bassinger's role in L.A. Confidential). My personal belief is that Zellweger won solely on the strength of her delivery of the "rain speech;" for the rest of the film she is so distantly behind Kidman and Law that "Supporting Actress" is something of an overstatement. If you're disturbed by Zellweger's squinting and whining, this is not the movie for you. Her brief performance includes one or both in every frame.

Kidman rounds out the main cast playing the dull and uninspired Ada who is only of real interest so long as her father (played well by Donald Sutherland) is in the flick. Kidman's character has little character and Kidman's performance is weakened by the fact that - as a weak character - she must play off other people to define herself. As a result, much of Kidman's performance is simply reacting, not actually imbuing the character with, well, character.

In contrast to the dull, plodding main characters and the uninspired performances by the leads, the supporting cast is pretty wonderful with a great array of actual characters. The always-wonderful Brendan Gleeson plays Ruby's father and as a credit to his acting ability, manages to portray him without even a hint of his 28 Days Later character. Gleeson reminds us how good character actors can be.

Supporting the film as well are Ethan Suplee, as the tragic Pangle, Jack White, as the musician Georgia, Kathy Baker as Sally - a role that redeems her tired performance as "hook lady" from Boston Public, Philip Seymour Hoffman, as Reverend Veasey - a fugitive to accompany Inman, and Donald Sutherland as Reverend Monroe. These characters are each more interesting than the main three and quite well-portrayed by their respective actors. Kathy Baker, for example, plays exceptionally well outside the special effects to make her pallor and near-death quite vivid and real.

But so much of Cold Mountain hinges on plot and it's not terribly compelling. After the first group of people are tormented or killed for harboring deserters or being a deserter, we understand how harsh the Home Guard is. The repetition of it simply fills time and delays the obvious conclusion to the movie. And the serious problem is that those characters we care the most for are so briefly in the movie before they are snuffed out.

It's basically a "soldier makes his way home from war and encounters obstacles" film. And intermingled with that is a "women at home fighting in their own way" story. The latter story suffers because the women are not interesting or particularly strong; indeed, Ada is almost entirely defined by her waiting for Inman and thus seeks her definition from a man. Consequently, the other half suffers because it does not take long before the viewer begins to wonder, "Why is Inman working so hard to get home to such a dull woman?" And Inman's own lack of genuine personality is confusing as well. We have a dull man determined to make it home to a woman who defines herself based on him, resulting in a cyclical motion of complete boredom.

Blood and guts fans will enjoy the battle scenes and Cold Mountain sadly has a scene of rural living involving the exsanguination of a goat that is very realistic and almost more tragic than the human costs of the movie. In short, though, this is a tired, tiresome movie, without anything truly new and led by characters and actors that were overpaid for their performances they failed to deliver on.

For other works featuring Natalie Portman, check out my reviews of:
Thor
No Strings Attached
Black Swan
The Other Woman
The Darjeeling Limited
V For Vendetta
The Star Wars Saga

4/10

Check out how this film stacks up against other films I have reviewed by visiting my Movie Review Index Page where the reviews are organized best film to worst!

© 2012, 2005 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Love Among The Elements: Ask The Dust

The Good: Interesting characters, Good acting
The Bad: Basic story, Minor pacing issues
The Basics: With decent acting and characters who at the least are interesting, Ask The Dust makes for a satisfying romantic drama.


One of my most common problems with films I watch has to do with pacing. Historically, in my reviews, that has meant that the movie does not move in an organic way, usually meaning it is too fast in some parts, too slow in others, without a level feeling to the story. In recent reviews, I've managed to make "pacing" and issue of a film simply being too slow. Ask The Dust returns to my traditional definition of pacing problems, as it - ironically - moves too fast, too soon, before becoming somewhat ponderous in the latter half.

Arturo Bandini, Colorado native and now a writer struggling through the poverty of living as an artist in California during the Depression, is living in a hotel, desperately trying to write the great American novel. Convinced that his life would be better in love with a blue-eyed blonde American woman, Arturo wastes away the days in Los Angeles until he is alone and down to his last nickel. Splurging the nickel on a cup of coffee, Arturo turns the experience of getting lousy coffee into a chance to degrade and humiliate a waitress named Camilla.

Camilla and Arturo have a series of fiery exchanges based on him being a jerk and her, well, putting up with it and punching back. When Arturo becomes convinced Camilla is involved with the bartender, Sammy, he allows himself to pursue another option, in the form of the somewhat crazy stalker Vera. When Vera leaves the picture, Arturo and Camilla find themselves moving toward one another again and their story becomes less adversarial and more loving.

The pacing problem in Ask The Dust is simple; when Arturo and Camilla first meet, Arturo is outright cruel, for no reason apparent other than implied racism over Camilla's Mexican heritage. Now Arturo's actions are those of a genuine jerk and probably a bigot. He returns to his hotel and feels bad and sends Camilla a copy of one of his published short stories. Camilla - illiterate as she is - cannot read it and ultimately destroys it. The extremity of their reactions to one another makes the speed at which they have anything to do with one another - much less exploring a romance - problematic.

Arturo's relationship with Vera seems designed to alleviate this very real narrative and character problem. Unfortunately, because of the time away and the uncertainty of the growth, there is little to recommend the relationship between Camilla and Arturo when he returns, save that he has some money. So, Camilla and Arturo develop a relationship and it works. But then, nothing much happens as they relate and the movie slows down a bit. In short, there's an uneven sense to the telling of the story, as opposed to the action of it.

But the pacing is the only serious problem here. Camilla and Arturo, once they get beyond being mean to one another, work well together. They have decent chemistry and the movie works as their story. This is in no small part to the character work. Arturo's journey from scumbag to human being is revealing and interesting, though somewhat baffling in its origins. That is to say, the revelations he makes at the climax of the movie seem like they should have been more readily available to him from the outset. In short, we can buy his journey from jerk to love of man and beast alike, but we're somewhat stymied as to why he's a jerk in the beginning at all.

Director (and screenwriter) Robert Towne does a wonderful job with the direction. This is a very easy movie to watch in that the scenery and camera work is quite beautiful. So are the people. Everything looks Hollywood good in Ask The Dust.

At the top of that list, of course, are the leads: Collin Farrell and Salma Hayek, though both earn their paychecks based on acting talent as opposed to the perceptions of their appearances. Farrell impressed me in Daredevil (reviewed here!) for his psychotic, crazy-eyed interpretation of Bullseye. To his credit, when Arturo is mean in Ask The Dust, there is not even a hint of that prior performance from Farrell. He creates a distinctly layered character in Arturo by playing more subtle with his expressions and mannerisms. By the middle of the movie, he's even evoking human sympathy for his character!

Salma Hayek, who attracted my notice in Dogma (reviewed here!) and blew me away with her talent in Frida (reviewed here!), once again rules the screen in Ask The Dust. Hayek has a way of infusing characters who have a social statement to make with an amazing sense of character that makes them come across as more than just posterchildren for a cause. So, for example, here Hayek's Camilla makes several sweeping statements on the importance of not judging her as a Mexican, but we never feel like this is just a generic "don't be bigoted" social message statement. Camilla, through Hayek's performance, illustrates the message by creating a truly vivid and vulnerable character who tries to hide her pains and ultimately proves her points through subtle interactions with others outside her relationship. Hayek owns the screen in every scene she's in. It's a pleasure to watch her in Ask The Dust.

Ultimately, Ask The Dust works well for anyone who wants a decent, straightforward romantic drama. And watching the Dustbowl-influenced Southern California is certainly easier and more fun than the reality of it.

For other romantic dramas, be sure to visit my reviews of:
Henry And June
Jersey Girl
Bound

8/10

For other film reviews, please visit my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Sacrifice, Style And The Utter Pointlessness Of Writing A Review Of The Hunger Games

The Good: Well-developed world, The romantic issues work well for the story, Action-packed
The Bad: Little character development, The acting is not as impressive as the cast, Perspective made me actually care less.
The Basics: Opening a new trilogy of films based on a popular novel series, The Hunger Games makes the audience into the barbarians the film ought to be commenting on.


If there is anything I have learned from reviewing works in the cinematic rendition of the Twilight Saga (Breaking Dawn, Part 1 is reviewed here!), it is that there is an utterly pointless quality to being a movie reviewer who wants to enjoy a movie for what is before them. What I mean by that is simple; the vast majority of readers of reviews for the Harry Potter franchise, the next Star Trek film, the Twilight Saga and other books-turned-to-movies are not interested in how the movie actually is. They want to know how the film stacks up to the book they read and what was included, what was excised. More often than not, they want solely to nitpick the comparative aspects of the book versus the film, despite the fact that they have already purchased their midnight screening tickets for the first available public showing. But, pointless or not, this review is not that type of review for The Hunger Games. I have not read The Hunger Games, I knew nothing of the franchise before seeing the movie and I had absolutely no preconceived notions of the plot, characters, etc. So, this is a pure review of the film only of The Hunger Games. If you want to know anything about how this stacks up against the book, this is not the review for you. Moreover, if your response to anything in this review is “well, that was addressed in the book . . .” your griping will fall upon deaf ears; this review is only the movie, as experienced as a self-standing work.

All those disclaimers aside, The Hunger Games is good. Let me be clear about that; The Hunger Games, the movie, is good. It is not a great film on any of the important fronts of plot, character or acting, but it is good. In fact, as one who despises reality programming, I had pretty serious issues with how the film works against its own themes, but at the end of the film, I felt I had not wasted my time with The Hunger Games. This might not be the ringing endorsement fans want for the film, but the truth is, The Hunger Games teeters on the upper end of average movies without anything inherently superlative.

In simpler terms, one of the outstanding problems with The Hunger Games is that those who do not come to the movie with an established love of the characters are not likely to fall in love with Katniss Everdeen or Peeta Mellark. As the two fight for their lives, the idea that they are simply fighting for survival wears thin over the brutality of the bloodsport they are involved in. As one sitting and watching the movie with no initial attachment to any of the characters, the feeling I had while watching tributes get cut down was “they all came from somewhere.” In other words, while the initial conflict and characterization are designed to get the viewer to care exclusively about Katniss’s place in the story, all of the other (non-professional) tributes in the story had lives before they were suddenly fighting to survive, so there is actually little catharsis as Katniss’s competitors bite the dust. In other words, it is very hard to make a biting commentary on bloodsports when the director then tries to make the bloodsport addictive to watch. But I get ahead of myself.

For those unfamiliar, as I was, with the universe of The Hunger Games, this is a story set in a post-collapse world, blending technology and very base instincts. The Hunger Games takes just enough time to provide the necessary exposition to get the viewer into the world. It’s not like suddenly being dropped onto an alien planet a la Predators (reviewed here!) for the viewers or the characters. In the broken world of The Hunger Games, North America has collapsed and is now divided into twelve Districts, which are subjugated by the opulent and powerful Capitol. Once upon a time, there was a thirteenth District, but when they rebelled against the control of the Capitol, they were brutally crushed. As punishment and reminder of their place, once a year, the twelve Districts must now compete in the Hunger Games, a televised life-or-death competition that all youth much watch. In this fashion, the Capitol uses fear to maintain control over the Districts.

Katniss Everdeen is sixteen years old and as a child between twelve and eighteen is compelled to participate in a lottery to participate in the Hunger Games for District 12, a poor mining District. For the 74th Annual Hunger Games, her twelve year-old sister, Primrose, is also eligible and when Primrose is selected by random lottery, Katniss steps up to take her place as the tribute for District 12. Katniss and her male counterpart, Peeta, a baker’s son who has known Katniss for years despite not having illustrated his true feelings for her before now, travel to the Capitol. There, Cinna grooms Katniss on how to best train for the competition and to illicit support from sponsors so she has the supplies needed to survive. Put on show by the talk show host of the day, Katniss manages to endear herself to District 12’s only Hunger Games survivor, who begins to mentor her.

When the games begin, the bloodshed starts, but Katniss and Peeta easily survive the first round of slaughter. Using her outdoor survival skills and her archery abilities, Katniss fights to win over the audience (for sponsor donations) through alliances, rule changes and taking care of her wounded friend from District 12.

The Hunger Games starts out by creating a world and a situation that seems initially deplorable, but then it becomes they very thing it deplores. Unlike something like the reality-show parody American Dreamz (reviewed here!), where the film lampooned the culture of ignorance that fostered the rise of reality television, The Hunger Games degenerates into the thing that it was originally trying to comment on. President Snow and his government understand the value of fear, which is the framework around which the Hunger Games are built. That works fine. But after initially setting Katniss up as a potential spoiler to the system, The Hunger Games simply becomes the game. In other words, director Gary Ross uses action sequences, the soundtrack and the sense of movement to make the viewer feel afraid for Katniss and Peeta. So, instead of being a harsh commentary on the brutal society that uses the Hunger Games for control, Ross deputizes the audience to be thrilled for and root for Katniss.

This gives the movie a slightly erratic feeling. The best analogy I have would be to a Senate debate on a law over violence on television that adjourned so that the members of the Senate could start shooting at one another. After humanizing Katniss and showing how the media is manipulating her (and how she presumes Peeta is manipulating the potential sponsors), the film turns into a remarkably straightforward survival story. While the politics behind things like the changing rules are presented, the film focuses much more on the effect than on the message. So, the last half of the film, especially, is a brutal reality-style sporting event with carnage more than any sort of commentary on it.

On the character front, The Hunger Games is less than I would have wanted. Katniss is interesting enough and her initial sense of sacrifice is engaging. She seems calm and unnerved in the Capitol and the arena, though she does seem surprised when Peeta expresses his feelings for her. But just as Cinna has coached her on how to get sponsors and succeed during the Hunger Games, the sixteen year-old Katniss reaches the logical conclusion that Peeta has been so coached as well. Outside her family connection – which is what inspires her to make an alliance with opposing tribute Rue – and her initial characterization that makes her survival in the wild realistic (through her friendship with Gale, hunting illegally), Katniss has little that makes her distinctive or interesting to watch. We get it, she loves her family, so she is risking her life for them. But so are other (peripheral) characters and that’s pretty much built into the concept. Katniss does not truly grow or develop in The Hunger Games, instead, she simply becomes more confident with who she already was.

The burgeoning romance between Katniss and Peeta is played generally well in The Hunger Games. It is initially clear to the viewer, not Katniss, that Peeta has real affection for his peer. That becomes muddied as Peeta uses his own affection as a tool to attract sponsors, which confuses Katniss (and has the potential to confuse the viewers). Given the way that Katniss and Gale interact in their brief time together on screen, The Hunger Games (as a franchise) seems like it could be moving closer to an uncomfortable Twilight-style melodrama with a love triangle. But within The Hunger Games, romantic attraction is used as a tool and that makes Peeta a more interesting character than the average sidekick (which is essentially the niche he is in for much of the film).

The Hunger Games features an impressive seasoned cast and a notably young primary cast. While Donald Sutherland, Elizabeth Banks and Stanley Tucci have little more than cameos in The Hunger Games, their appearances are notable (and more than just for their make-up!). Woody Harrelson plays Abernathy well; with so many roles beneath his belt, it is rare to see a performance from him that still surprises me. But he played drunk and bitter very well. The surprise of the adult cast (for me) was Lenny Kravitz. Kravitz plays Cinna and there are moments in his scenes with Jennifer Lawrence that he seems downright fatherly, which is something I have never associated with Kravitz before.

Much of the movie comes down to the talents of Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss) and Josh Hutcherson (Peeta). Neither one left me impressed. Lawrence handles the action sequences very well, but is remarkably stiff at points when it seems her character is emoting. Similarly, Hutcherson’s Peeta did not engage me in a way that made me empathize with the boy. Hutcherson’s performance left the idea of Peeta’s love for Katniss very ambiguous. By Hutcherson’s performance, it was never clear how much was what Peeta felt and how much was the character’s attempt to manipulate the in-universe audience. While there are moments, especially early on, where he says the words with feeling, as the movie progresses, his performance starts to have the words, but not the body language, not the emotion, to back them up. At that point, his performance seems less declarative.

The effects in The Hunger Games are brutal and after a more cerebral training sequence, the volume of blood and ferocity of the actual games is enough to make you set your popcorn aside. Director Gary Ross does well with using the camera to keep the sense of tension and angst, though there are frenetic moments that seem more sloppy than stylized. For the most part, though, the effects are decent and serve their purpose.

Ultimately, though, The Hunger Games is an engaging action adventure film that tries hard to be smarter than it ultimately becomes. For those still reading for some sense of advice; avoid the crowds of fans, wait two weeks and catch The Hunger Games as a matinee.


For other films that focus on violent contests, please check out my reviews of:
Gamer
Death Race
The Cabin In The Woods

6.5/10

For other film reviews, please be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing of all the films I have reviewed!

© 2012 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |