"The Hunger Games: Catching Fire" Review

When I first heard of The Hunger Games, I was skeptical. The last young adult, book-to-film adaptation series that I saw included sparkly vampires, and a less then engaging plot. Then I actually shelled out and saw the first movie, and I was impressed. Other than the inevitable comparisons to Battle Royale and The Lottery, the film had first rate acting and an intriguing story. Now, I have seen The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, and for lack of better phrasing, I was completely blown away.

In The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, Katniss Everdeen and her faux beau Peeta Mellark are forced to go on a "Victor's Tour" following the events of the first film. However, her actions have also aroused the suspicions of President Snow who feels that Katniss' strong willed spirit may turn her into a revolutionary symbol. With tensions growing, President Snow turns the 75th Annual Hunger Games into a "Quarter Quell" consisting of previous victors.

A sequel to The Hunger Games could have gone in any number of directions. The one the choose however, feels the most organic. It's a natural progression towards the revolution that is clearly in the works.  Its a sharp, thought provoking, political thriller in some spots, and in others it feels like a tense aftermath to the harrowing events of the previous film. Katniss' PTSD after what she was forced to do to stay alive the first time around are something that I wasn't expecting, but feels human and realistic. The characters motives feel like a carefully executed game of chess, but much more riveting. I will go no further in order to avoid spoiling the film, but the twists in this movie could be some of the most unexpected I have ever seen, and also the most satisfying.

Jennifer Lawrence returns as our Girl on Fire, Katniss Everdeen, and having won the Oscar last year has clearly been a boon to her confidence. She is strong willed, caring, and overall in-command. She plays her character with an awed quiet demeanor which many characters consider to be her stubbornness, yet we know well enough to now it is her honesty and refusal to conform.

Josh Hutcherson also reprises his role as Peeta, and this time around, he is much more interesting. Rather than playing his manufactured romance with a martyr sense behind the curtain, he cuts through the b.s. and tries to work to everyones advantage.

Whereas the first film sidelined brilliant talents such as Liam Hemsworth and Donald Sutherland, this film actually gives them a more important part, and lets them shine. Under the direction of Francis Lawrence (no relation), the previously neglected ensemble is allowed to stretch their thespian muscles and share the spotlight. New additions to the cast are the always welcome Philip Seymour Hoffman and Jeffrey Wright.  Both of them play interesting catalysts to the film's plot and take their performances in unexpected routes.

Andrew's Standout was difficult to choose for this movie, as it would be akin to picking a star in the sky. Yet the one the shines the brightest is that of Mr Woody Harrelson. His Haymitch is clearly the most complex out of the bunch, and Harrelson brings his years of experience in order to make him pop. You're never quite sure where he's going to land with all of his issues, and it's fun to try to guess.   Also, take into consideration the irony that he started his career as the bartender Woody Boyd in Cheers, and now he plays the alcoholic Haymitch.

The costumes, makeup, and special effects stand out very clearly. They are wonderfully eccentric and visually appealing. It takes some kind of talent to turn the beautiful Elizabeth Banks and make her look like Lady Gaga's twin sister. Also, it's nice to see the fire effects are fixed from the first movie. They no longer look like something out of 1996.

See this movie. See the first movie, then see this movie. Not only is it one of the best blockbusters released this year, it's also one of the smartest.

A

"12 Years a Slave" Review

Last year, the Quentin Tarantino film Django Unchained premiered. While the screenplay was smart,  the action was entertaining, and the acting was top notch, it teetered on the edge of absurdity. It dealt with sensitive subject matter, yet chose to instead market itself as a classic spaghetti western. Though there's nothing with that, it had potential to be so much more than what it turned out to be. 12 Years a Slave tackles the material head on, and for doing so, it becomes a gritty, human picture with a dark sense of realism.

In 12 Years a Slave, Solomon Northup is a free African American living in the north in the year 1841. When he takes a job playing the fiddle in touring company, he is drugged, kidnapped, and sold into slavery despite his protests. Under the new name "Platt," he spends 12 years in slavery on a handful of different plantations, witnessing unspeakable horrors, and hanging on to the hope that one day he will be reunited with his family in Saratoga.

Rather than try to water down the horrors that American slavery is known for, the film takes the road less travelled. It shows you the horrors onscreen, rather than just showing implications. While it may be hard to watch at times, it has a sense of authenticity that most films of this type don't usually have. It was filmed on actual plantations, some near where the real life Solomon Northup was kept in captivity. The costumes are painstakingly recreated to look as though they have been pulled out of a museum. The accents are beautifully constructed, so well, you would hardly be able to tell that half the cast is actually British instead of American Southern.

The narrative is pieced together masterfully, utilizing flash-forwards and splice cutting of the action leading up to big reveals. I am not familiar with the story, nor have I read Northup's autobiography, so I can't attest to how closely it adheres to the source material, nor can I verify that it has truly earned the right to say "This film is based on a true story." However, for what it presents itself as, it relates a truly harrowing tale that reels you in and makes you hope for our protagonist.

Chiwetel Ejiofor plays our hero, Solomon Northup. He has a sense of confidence combined with his lingering spirit of rebellion, and an unhindering determination that makes us identify with him, and hope that he will be reunited with his family in the end. That being said, he also conveys a sense of emotion and sensitivity that feels true to one in his situation that makes him that much more human. He endures this cruelty without giving up hope and keeps his head up high. There are rumors persisting that he is in negotiations for a role in the next Star Wars movie, and if that is true, I am excited to see where he takes the franchise.

Michael Fassbender portrays Edwin Epps, the films main antagonist. Whereas in the past, Fassbender has played charming, suave, sophisticated men (or androids), here he plays a nasty, vile, all-around despicable slave master who isn't afraid to get his hands dirty. All the better for it. Because, yes, we do hate his character, but that only means that Fassbender is doing his job right. A compelling villain will make you cringe at the very sight of him, and have you wish the worst on him in the end. Fassbender goes above and beyond to create a truly evil human being.

Andrew's Standout for this film, (and I never really thought i'd say this) is Benedict Cumberbatch who portrays William Ford, the first master to Solomon Northup. Similar to Fassbender, Cumberbatch goes against his usual type. In contrast to the sly, brooding antagonists that American audiences have come to identify him as, here he plays a kinder man who treats his slaves with respect. That's what makes him interesting. For what he is, a slaver, it's rather difficult to hate him. He is as likable as anyone in his profession can possibly be. He is genuinely caring for Solomon, even rewards him, and shields him from vengeful overseers. For that, he truly captures you attention.

I have gotten to the point where I can sometimes pick out who the composer is without knowing beforehand. When I heard the similar gentle tones that I recognized from Inception, I immediately knew that Hans Zimmer was in front of his orchestra. He composes a lovely, mood setting score that seems almost as masterful as the film itself.

I would check out this movie, its a masterful picture with brilliant acting, and a meticulous attention to detail that boosts itself to new heights. It will no doubt be a major topic around Oscar time, and seeing the film would be a great boon to you.

A

"Man of Steel" Review

He isn't the most popular superhero, but he is one of the oldest. Like him or not, everyone knows who Superman is. And not counting animation, it can be said that he hasn't had a decent adaptation since the days of Richard Donner and Christopher Reeve. Lord knows he's been deserved of one, and on paper, Christopher Nolan was the man to make it happen. 

Man of Steel tells the tale of a young man named Clark Kent who has always had unique abilities, and is confused when he finally discovers that he is apparently the sole survivor of the planet Krypton. But when more of his people arrive looking for an ancient Kryptonian artifact, Clark must make a decision that will that change his life, and the world forever. 

If you're going to go by the comic origin of Superman, there's not much room for creativity. There's mainly room for stylistic decisions. Another challenge is trying to bring a grounded sense of realism that Nolan films focus on. Whereas in Batman it is a much easier pill to swallow, the idea of bringing reality and creativity to a god-like alien is much more difficult. 

In some respects, Man of Steel is original and possesses a unique style that stands itself out in a way that will distinguish it from the other adaptations. It has a visual distinction that can't be denied, utilizing costume and design choices that haven't really applied to the Superman mythology before. 

However, as much as it attempts to be unique, it somehow loses the sense of the uplifting and signature spirit of Superman. It may be because of the enormous pressure on director Zack Snyder, or it could be because there are parts of the film that seem too complicated or not appropriate to the character, but somehow it just seems to lose its way. 

There's nothing wrong with the acting however. Henry Cavill, whom you may recognize as Charles Brandon from the Showtime series The Tudors or as Theseus from the film Immortals, plays Clark Kent. While he doesn't have the same innocent charisma as the legendary Christopher Reeve, he does bring a newer sense of confidence to the character that both modernizes him and keeps him from growing stale. He grows during the film from a man lost in the world into the character we all know. I am very interested into where he takes him next. 

While there's no man that could ever iconize General Zod in the way that Terrence Stamp has, Andrew's Standout for this movie is Michael Shannon who tries his damnedest to put his own (dare I say it?) stamp on the character. He never feels like an all out monster, his motives are pure, but his execution is what makes him our villain. As dastardly as he can be, Shannon's Zod is someone that you feel for. That's where the audience identification comes in. He isn't the most memorable villain, but he gives the most chilling performance in the entire film. 

Amy Adams takes Lois Lane in the direction of a self-confident, assured woman who doesn't feel like a damsel in distress. It is certainly a refreshing change of pace from the Lois who always gets kidnapped to the point that villains in the comics refer to her as "the one Superman always saves." It is a brilliant character decision, and Adams is the one to pull it off. 

I would certainly give this movie a look. While it never really feels like the Superman we've come to know, it is by no means a bad movie.

B- 

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" Retro Review

For today's review, I have chosen the movie that started it all for me. I was 14 years old, and at that point I had no idea what I wanted to with my life. But then one fateful trip to Alice in Videoland with my Uncle Sean changed all that. I spotted the DVD on the shelf and had recognized the logo from a trip to Walt Disney World. We rented it, returned home, popped it in the player, and I was dazzled. The stunts, the thrills, the adventure, the music, the dashing hero coming to the rescue. It was the most engaging film I had ever seen, and from then on, I knew I wanted to be.....an archaeologist. Of course that didn't pan out. I bought a couple books and thought at one point that I would actually find the Ark of the Covenant, or even the Holy Grail (which at the time I thought was real). But then I realized my heart wasn't in that. What I really admired about the film was the spectacle. The story, the characters, the production. I knew then that my future was in film.

Raiders of the Lost Ark, is about noted archaeologist Indiana Jones who is hired by the United States government to find the lost Ark of the Covenant in the year 1936. However, he also has to compete against the Nazis who seek the Ark for their own nefarious purposes. He brings along with him his friend Sallah who is loyal through and through, and old fame Marion Ravenwood, with whom he has a history.

As much as this review is a love letter to this film, this film is a love letter to the adventure serials of the 1930s. Of course Steven Spielberg and George Lucas aren't asking you to come back to the theater every week, that would be silly. Yet, if that was to happen, I would do it. Together, this tag team of emerging talent creating such a beautiful tale, that is well executed, well acted, all together a work of art. A masterpiece.

Some may consider the ending a bit "Deus ex machina", yet I choose to look at it under the microscope of a man in the 1930s. Like my other favorite movie Die Hard, the film isn't the most intellectually engaging of stories, yet it doesn't try to pretend that it is something that it isn't. The adventure is a roller coaster of nostalgic amusement. It's not meant to make you think about the politics of the 1930s, it's not even meant to push christianity upon you, the purpose of the film is to root for our hero, watch him beat some bad guys, dust himself off, and save the day. It takes you back to a simpler time, during the depression, and prior to the outbreak of World War II.  Back then, it was about escapism. The thrills of the film take you away from it all.

Harrison Ford is our hero in the hat, Indiana Jones. Having just come off a particularly memorable turn as Han Solo in The Empire Strikes Back, Ford is given the keys to a franchise he can call his own. Given that he only received the role after Tom Selleck dropped out, he gives his all to the role, and I'll be darned if this isn't his most memorable performance to date. Compared to the hulking action heroes of the 1980s, Ford is a scrappy underdog that most men could relate to. He has a spirit of adventure that is equally thrilling and relatable. He is perfectly, and masterfully cast in the role of a lifetime.

The music runs alongside the action in away that it only does from John Williams. The tense beating of the orchestra sets the mood for some of the film's most memorable scenes. The main theme of the film is both uplifting and catchy to the point that you will recognize it even if you've never seen the film.

The stunt choreography is also brilliant. The amount of things that they can think of to do with a bullwhip outside of its intended purposes are astounding. Again, the staging and the physicality of it all makes for particularly memorable cinema.

See this movie. See it again. Then see it a third time. I am often asked what my favorite movie of all time is, this is the closest answer you will ever get. It is masterful, beautiful, and iconic. It's the move that changed my life. If it doesn't do the same for you, it will at least take you for a thrill ride.

A+

"Thor: The Dark World" Review

There is a reason why I consider Kevin Feige the smartest person in show business. He has been at the helm of Marvel Studios since 2007, and more than anyone else, he is the man singlehandedly responsible for The Avengers, the films that led to it, and the films that come in its wake. If you read any interview with the man, he speaks clearly, he uses down to earth language, and he understands what an audience wants. I'm not at all claiming that he is the man who crafted Thor: The Dark World, but he is the farmer who decides on the crops and plants the seeds.

In Thor: The Dark World, Jane Foster accidentally awakens an ancient evil, prompting Thor to return to Earth to bring her to Asgard. When the evil Malekith raises the stakes, Thor has no choice but to turn to his imprisoned brother Loki for help.

What worked so well about the first Thor movie was the masterful blending of genres. This time, they decided to throw some more into the mix. Start with some fantasy, a toss of science fiction, a dash of swashbuckling adventure, bits and pieces of a thriller. Blend for 112 minutes, and you get Thor: The Dark World. The recipe works again for this movie, it is compelling and full of twists and turns that you don't see coming. However, someone seemed to spill a little too much humor into the blender. What could be an otherwise magnificent movie is ruined by spontaneous jokes and gags in areas where the film should be taking itself seriously.

The genius of Kevin Feige that shows up in this film is the hiring of Alan Taylor as the director. Well known for his work on the popular HBO series Game of Thrones, Taylor brings that sense of realism, grittiness and human interest with him. The film is able to find footing in the tone established in the original film, and also some of the trademark style from out of Westeros.

Chris Hemsworth returns as the God of Thunder with a newfound sense of responsibility for the people he must protect. He clearly has a handle on who the character is, and where in his life Thor should be. We have watched Hemsworth develop alongside Thor in these past few movies, and thats what makes his performance all the more interesting.

Kat Dennings goes hand in hand with my issue about the amount of humor in the film. Her character (once again) does nothing except pander for cheap laughs. Dennings is not a bad actress, but her style is more at home in her sitcom.

The only other issue I have with the film is the performance of Christopher Eccleston as Malekith. He just never feels interesting. He comes across as two dimensional, with no personal investment in his characters motives. I can't help but feel the original choice of Mads Mikkelsen would have given a much more chilling take on the character.

Andrew's Standout for this iteration would be the always welcome Tom Hiddelston as Loki. It could be easy to believe that his popularity would be waning at this point, and his inclusion in the film is mere pandering to the millions of fan girls that worship him. However, he avoids this completely by offering a new, fresh take on the character. He is reeling from the consequences of his past actions, and comes across as a compelling anti-hero. He is like a quarter being flipped. You can call it in the air, but you can never be sure on which side he will land.

On every level, it's just as good of a film as the original film. It merely suffers from an abundance of humor and an uninteresting villain. I still say check it out. It is incredibly well made.

B+

"Thor" RE-Review

As promised, I have rewatched Thor and here is my new, updated review in my standard format.

When he disobeys the express wishes of his father and King Odin, Thor, the crown prince of Asgard and God of Thunder, is exiled from his home world and sent to earth stripped of his powers. In order to return to his home and loved ones, he must prove himself worthy enough to lift his enchanted hammer Mjolnir. But there are also dark forces at work here too.

The outline of the plot is nothing spectacular, I will admit. However, it is the execution that makes it stand above being a cliche. Rather than just another run of the mill sword in the stone, it is a well thought out merger of science fiction and norse mythology. The inclusion of the Marvel Universe spy organization S.H.I.E.L.D., not only ties the film into the events in The Avengers, it also finds some realistic grounding to extraordinary circumstances. When you see someone who considers himself a God come to Earth and does nothing to prove it, your first instinct is dismiss him as insane. However, the audience who is well aware of his true nature will see this as an adventure for him to reclaim what is rightfully his, and a masterful blending of genres.

When he was first cast in the title role, Chris Hemsworth was only known to American audiences for his very brief role as George T. Kirk in the 2009 reboot of Star Trek. It was not a lot to go on to judge if he was right for the role, yet it wasn't enough to deem him unfit to don the cape and armor either. When he first comes onto the screen as Thor, you can see his youthful exuberance, mixed with the notion that this character has experience. He is a fresh face, but at the same time, it never feels like an origin story, thanks to Hemsworth. He forges the role into something he can call his own.

Tom Hiddleston is clearly Andrew's Standout. His Loki is humble yet cunning and ruthless. The most dangerous people are the ones you don't think are dangerous to begin with. In the beginning, you have no obvious reason to distrust him, and that's a testament to Hiddleston's ability. He hides his true nature so well, that to an audience unfamiliar with the mythology, they couldn't sense that he is the true driving force.

The rest of the cast all deliver stellar performances that stay true to the original comic book incarnation of their respective characters, but at the same time have a contemporary feel to them.

However, Kat Dennings' character Darcy is a force that is not necessary to the overall feel of the film. She feels much like a pander to the MTV crowd. Her inclusion contributes absolutely nothing organic. However, I blame it on the writing.

The special effects are rather dazzling in comparison to other fantasy films such as the update of Clash of the Titans, and the choreography is marvelous with fight scenes of epic proportions.

See this film. Not only is it a decent movie, it's a step towards The Avengers that never just feels like a puzzle piece, but rather stands out as it's own as excellent filmmaking.

B+

"Last Vegas" Review

In 2009, a film called The Hangover opened in theaters and absolutely took the world by storm. There was no one reason that it was as mammoth of a success as it was, and given the star power and premise behind Last Vegas, there was no reason it couldn't work again. But in the process, the makers of the film seem to have forgotten to give it an edge.

Last Vegas is about four friends reuniting for the bachelor party of the last one of them to be married. However, two of them still have some bad blood between them that could ruin everyone elses party.

While there is a certain amount of comedy to be found in Last Vegas, the big laughs are far in between. And save for two scenes that stand out above the rest, there is nothing to really make you fall out of your seat with laughter. The trouble with the movie is that it plays it way too safe. There is no danger, no major conflict, not really much of anything that keeps you guessing. What worked about The Hangover is that it pushed the envelope. It went to places that some movies were just too afraid to go. There were scenes that you just could not believe. With Last Vegas, it more or less "disneyfied" that story into something extremely tame and rather predictable.

What got to me the most however, is the same problem that I had with Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. There were far too many jokes about how old the characters were. While it's understandable to want to have a little fun with that idea, at some point you just say to yourself "Ok, we get it. They're old, let's move on."

There certainly is no problem with the acting. These four legends certainly work their craft and try to make the most out of a subpar script. Morgan Freeman and Kevin Kline make rather amusing oddballs, and Michael Douglas does his best "Gordon Gekko on holiday."

However, the brightest candle, and thus Andrew's Standout, would have to be the bold and blunt Robert De Niro. He stays true to the long standing tough guy persona he has spent his career molding. He is clearly enjoying himself, but never gets too goofy. Most of all, his performance has the most emotion out of the group, and certainly the most heart.

Overall, it's a PG-13 geriatric Hangover that's never quite as funny as it should be. I say save your money, go to a Redbox in a few months, and watch it in the comfort of your own home.

C