The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 (2014)

2/5

The third installment in the Hunger Games trilogy is--surprisingly--not the last, as you might expect from my use of the word trilogy. Instead, the producers behind the franchise are hoping to eke out every last cent possible from its fan base in the great tradition of Harry Potter and Twilight. It is worse off for it, as this film plods along slowly, without much purpose except to prepare us for the next one. It is not only painfully slow, it is also tremendously different in terms of style, mood, and thematics. The third Hunger Games movie could have been great if it ended the series, building on the momentum generated from the first two films, but it's not. Instead it's mediocre filler that prolongs the inevitable release of the finale.

This is (obviously) not an issue with the book, because the book doesn't end where the movie ends. If, in fact, the story benefited from being split into two parts, I presume the book would have been split into two books. It is not. It is one book. It is one story. If you need more time to tell the story you want to tell, make a miniseries instead of a movie. If you are unable to make creative decisions when it comes to editing, you are not a filmmaker. You are a moneymaker. And The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1, if you couldn't tell from the title, is a moneymaking grab.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951265/

The Lego Movie (2014)

3/5

The Lego Movie is a two-hour long advertisement that you have to pay to see. Yes, it has a story and characters, but so do thirty-second TV bits. And that doesn't change the fact that it is an advertisement for a brand, even if it is a brand that many people have fond childhood memories of. I typically don't mind product placement (e.g., I, Robot) or obvious sponsorship (e.g., The Hire: Powder Keg) as long as the movie can stand on its own merits. This movie cannot. If our analytic functions weren't so warped by our communal nostalgia of the lovable building bricks, it would be obvious to everybody just how middle-of-the-road this movie is.

The movie is frustrating because its creators seem confused as to what they are trying to say. Every theme seems half-baked, every new message inconsistent with the last one. The Lego Movie is a conceptual mess. The only thing I am certain of is that this movie thinks Legos are awesome and that you should go buy some right now!

The movie starts by satirizing the idea that following rules is good, by mocking the idea that teamwork is beneficial. (Side note: is it even really that bad to abide by laws? to work as a team?) It uses the incredibly catchy song Everything Is AWESOME!!! as a representation of the fascist, domineering society where we lose our individuality, but then uses that very same song to cheer up one of the characters later on. So are we supposed to like it or are we supposed to reject it? Because it's currently one of the most popular songs on iTunes.

And I'm a little confused by the ending. I don't want to spoil things for those who haven't seen it, so I urge people who don't want this mediocre movie spoiled to stop reading now. After this sentence there be spoilers. So is Emmett real or is he in the boy's imagination? If it's all made up, then how did Emmett move around on the table and attract the boy's attention? If it's all real, then it seems as if the boy just took credit for building literally hundreds of new designs that the Lego people actually built! Seems a little fishy to me. See what I mean when I say that the movie feels underdeveloped and poorly-thought out?

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1490017/

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013)

4/5

Catching Fire, the second in Collins's dystopian series, delivers another extremely faithful adaptation. Like the book it's based on, Catching Fire is better than The Hunger Games. Ironically, watching this movie made me realize how bad the first one was. It probably deserved a 3/5, but I must have given it an extra 1 star because of my fondness for the book. Catching Fire, however, is more exciting and action-packed--with less of the morally-reprehensible kids-killing-kids storyline--than the first one. I probably would have enjoyed the movie even more if I weren't so tired going in, and I even nodded off a few times in the first half of the movie, but it maintained a perfectly tight pace in the second half.

The acting by all parties is surprisingly adept. Although by no means Oscar-worthy, Lawrence, Hutcherson, and Claflin all do their job at evoking emotions and making you care about them. You care not only that they survive the games but also that they satisfy their hearts' desires. The real treasure is the directing itself, which combines emotion, mystery, and action effortlessly. The script is taut and the editing lean. Although the runtime is well over 2 hours, it doesn't feel like there are any extraneous or wasted scenes (which litter the first one in an attempt to be "faithful" to the source material). It stands on its own as a good movie, independent of the phenomenon that is The Hunger Games. For anyone who enjoyed the books, this is an easy recommendation. I only wish the next one wasn't split into two parts.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1951264/

Movie 43 (2013)

1/5

Movie 43 is an abomination of filmmaking. It is an offensive assault on the senses for 90 straight minutes. This thing--which I refuse to call a movie--is a collection of unrelated images and scenarios designed to disgust and disturb. It is the kind of thing created for reaction videos, with no inherent value. From neck testicles to cartoon cat masturbation fantasies, from parental abuse and incest to graphic leprechaun violence, from gratuitous nudity to yellowface surgery, there is no line it won't cross. I'm disappointed that so many quality actors have sullied their names by taking part in this evil transgression of cinema, this shameful plague of a thing. It makes me shudder just thinking about it. Ugh.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1333125/

The Hunger Games (2012)

4/5

The Hunger Games is more of a phenomenon than a movie, based on the first of Suzanne Collins's trilogy of books that took the world by storm. I won't bore you with the movie's plot, because you've probably already figured it out from the seemingly endless tide of people around you who have already read the books and can't stop chattering about them. The series is essentially a love story between Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) with a little bit of action, violence, and political intrigue thrown in to spice it up. The story involves all three basic formulas for romance: 1) love triangle, 2) two people forced together by circumstance who fall in love, and 3) two people who love each other torn apart by circumstance. No wonder it's so successful.

As far as adaptations go, this one is fair. It takes no risks, aiming right in the middle of mediocrity to offend nobody, and indeed it fails at just about nothing. Unfortunately, it could have been really spectacular if helmed by a director with a vision. Instead, the director seems to harbor some sort of foolish fondness for over-editing and Shakicam shots, a term I coined myself to describe the silly trend of ignoring the revolutionary invention known as the Steadicam and going ultra-Bourne Supremacy on everything. The editing was by far the worst part about the movie, with Hemsworth's acting taking a close second. Not only is there split-second splicing of every action scene--making it impossible to tell what was going on--but the movie could have been cut to a more manageable 2 hours and have been just as satisfying, if not more so. As for the actor who played Gale, he was atrocious at line delivery. The only thing he did well was look down mopingly whenever Katniss and Peeta kissed, because apparently he has mastered that one skill set of neck flexion.

There are, however, some moving parts that carried over well from the book. One, my favorite, is Peeta's interview with Caesar (Tucci) and Katniss's subsequent reaction. Another is Katniss's first kill in the games, with an emotional tug that was cleverly flipped around from how it occurred in the book. The movie also added the character of Seneca Crane (Bentley), the Head Gamemaker, in a surprisingly intelligent way. Bentley, along with Woody Harrelson and Elizabeth Banks, were absolutely fantastic in their roles and brought the characters to life. The movie itself is a must-see for anyone who's read the book. It's also a must-see for anyone who doesn't like being out of the loop, as this is the kind of movie that everybody will be talking about. If you don't care about any of those things, well, then you're probably not reading this review anyway. So go out and watch the movie; it's an entertaining ride and does its fair share to bring the book to life.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

Man on a Ledge (2012)

4/5

Man on a Ledge is a thoroughly preposterous yet eminently entertaining edge-of-your-seat thriller. The man on the ledge is Nick Cassidy (Worthington), an NYPD officer who was framed for stealing a $40mil diamond from David Englander (Harris). Intent on proving his innocence, he walks out on the ledge to draw attention away from Englander's vault, where the supposedly stolen diamond remains. He requests a specific negotiator, Lydia Mercer (Banks), as his brother Joey (Bell) and Joey's girlfriend (Rodriguez) begin to break in to the vault so that they can reveal the truth.

As I said, preposterous. But easily one of the most suspenseful and engaging movies I've seen in a while. This is most likely entirely due to tight editing, which keeps the intensity high and maintains focus on propelling the story forward. Surprisingly, Bell and Rodriguez were the most humorous and human part of the film, and also the most exciting. Their banter kept the relatively hackneyed plot fresh and lively. Worthington and Banks, on the other hand, were fairly bland (despite obvious attempts to suggest complexity and deeper motivations). Everything is well-shot and well-acted, but the script, while clever initially, feels quite contrived. It just doesn't hold water, from simplistic dismantling of security systems to instantaneous assumptions of innocence. While it may be realistic, it simply doesn't ring true to a moviegoer's ear. To make matters worse, everything somehow ties up too neatly in the end while simultaneously being messy in the most unsatisfying way. All in all, however, this is an enjoyable way to spend an evening; just don't think too hard about it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1568338/

W. (2008)

2/5

Oliver Stone's W. claims to be an honest representation of the former President in the hopes of dismantling years of misconceptions, both positive and negative, but is instead a ludicrous farce filled with exaggerations and caricatures. The movie goes back and forth between history and the present, starting with his time in office and intercutting with past events that led him there (including random, unrelated ones). I can imagine this was done for no other reason than to make up for lacking transitions and storyline inconsistencies. There is no progression or escalation, merely event after event after event, which makes the 2 hour runtime laboriously slow. (I thought it was nearing the end before 90 minutes in.) And each vignette is only hinted at, nothing is fleshed out, so we are left with a frustratingly inadequate and incomplete picture of a man nobody really cares about anymore. Not only that, but the rest of the screen is filled with people who are more focused on their horrific accents than their characters, which turn out to be flatter than their real counterparts (and those I've only seen in stilted TV announcements).

The one redeeming factor is the humor that is infused in this film, although I'm not sure it was all intentional. Because everything is so extreme, it is also preposterous to the point of comedy. The movie cannot be taken seriously anymore. Dick Cheney is a raving, power-hungry, egomaniacal lunatic--weren't we trying to dispel myths and prejudices? Condoleezza Rice is, for some bizarre reason, an uglier, female version of Neil Goldman from Family Guy. Below I have included a clip with Neil Goldman; as you watch it, just imagine Thandie Newton in disfiguring makeup prosthetics talking to Bush, and you have the movie W. Don't watch this movie; it's a waste of time.



IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1175491/

Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)

4/5

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is essentially the dirty version of what every upstart indie filmmaker goes through. It stars Seth Rogen and Elizabeth Banks as two roommates who turn to making a certain type of adult movie to pay their bills. Despite being directed by Kevin Smith, the casting makes it feel like a Judd Apatow movie. Their acting, in concert with Smith's writing, give the film a realism you wouldn't think possible based on the plot. And their little arguments and amusing antics make it hilarious. But just like every Kevin Smith movie, there is one ridiculously gross moment that you don't expect and will never forget, even though it's on screen for less than a second.

But perhaps I appreciate this movie a bit more than most people might, because I know this kind of guerrilla filmmaking. I've lived it. I made my boom pole out of a golf club instead of a hockey stick and I shot at a grocery store instead of a coffee shop, but I've lived it. And I know what it's like when the people you work with become your best and closest friends. So I share a nostalgia with the movie that helps me love it. Still, I'm sure anyone who likes either Kevin Smith or Seth Rogen will love this movie too. Just be prepared for nudity and sex, because there's a lot of it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1007028/

Role Models (2008)

4/5

Role Models stars Paul Rudd and Seann William Scott as Danny and Wheeler, two advertisers for Minotaur energy drink. Danny hates every new trend and saying and he picks fights with everyone who uses them. He's in a rut, and when he tries to shake things up with an impromptu and rather lame proposal to his girlfriend Beth (Elizabeth Banks), she dumps him. In a fit of anger, he does some highly illegal things in the Minotaur truck with Wheeler, and they both get sentenced to do community service with the Sturdy Wings mentoring program as punishment. The rest of the movie is the expected, predictable journey of maturation and development that Danny and Wheeler undergo, with the requisite melodramatic loss of trust and triumphant winning back of love.

Still, the movie manages to impress. The humor starts off a little subdued, but quickly builds with incessant, nearly ubiquitous sexual innuendo and laugh-out-loud situations. The writing is phenomenal, throwing in little jokes and asides that give the movie flair and individuality and ensuring you quote it long after its ending. There are no major complaints I have from a technical standpoint. The one thing I didn't like was the two bits of nudity in the movie; they were completely unnecessary, thrown in for seemingly no other reason than because they already had an R rating for language and figured they might as well get more bang for their buck, literally. At the very least, the use of nudity wasn't distasteful or overindulgent, so for that I'm thankful. Anyway, I have only very minor complaints with this altogether enjoyable and entertaining movie experience.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0430922/

The 40-Year-Old Virgin (2005)

4/5

The 40-Year-Old Virgin is an atypically smart take on a typically dumb comedy. It succeeds not because it generates more laughs, but because it generates more empathy. While I actually found most of the characters shallow and stereotypical, the titular role is surprisingly fleshed out. Carell's perfectly nuanced performance was amazing. I was blown away by a simple yet necessary line of dialogue he utters near the end that belies the simplicity and stupidity of the plot: "I got this when I was in second grade! Do you know how hard it is for a kid to not open that?" It is by far my favorite line in the movie. A close second comes from Seth Rogen's character: "You wait for it to grow into a plant... and then you fuck the plant."

The movie works well throughout. It is funny and it has heart, but it also has problems. Many scenes were side stories thrown in for comedic effect. And though it didn't usually happen, some jokes fell absolutely flat. The flashback/montages were stylistically jarring. And the story jumped around a lot. Because of this, the runtime was a bit long, which made the obligatory "discovery to argument to hatred to realization of true love" at the end seem tedious instead of tender. But again, being a huge Office fan, I love seeing the actors cameo in minor roles. I saw Knocked Up and enjoyed it; I think I may have enjoyed this movie more though, so I highly recommend it.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0405422/