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/

X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014)

4/5

X-Men: Days of Future Past reignites the fire that made the X-Men movies such hits. The story is set at some ambiguous time in the future, in which mutant-killing machines named Sentinels are continuously hunting the last of the mutant race. Fortuitously, Ellen Page's character can send people back in time, and Hugh Jackman's character has the "healing power" to withstand going back to the 1970's and changing the course of human--err, mutant--history. (I'm still not sure how going back in time is physically damaging to the human body, but I guess the producers wanted to milk the Wolverine cow for as much advertising power as they could.)

The movie feels a little over the top, with a depressing post-apocalyptic vision of the future and an overwhelming sense of dread permeating the entire movie. The stakes in action movies just seem to get bigger and bigger with every franchise sequel. But there is one truly magical scene early on in the movie (when the younger generation of mutants break Magneto out of prison) that is filled with such levity and fun, such imagination and creativity, to make you think you were in a different movie. Unfortunately, after that scene, the movie returns to its aggressively-serious, doom-filled march.

I'm sure the comic canon fanatics will have complaint after complaint with the creators playing fast and loose with characters, backstories, and time travel, but the fact remains that the latest X-Men movie is one of the rare action movies that remains a mystery despite a predictable plot progression. Although you know the general trend of what happens, it keeps you on the edge of your seat wondering not just who will live and who will die, but how exactly all the details play out. The story is a bit convoluted and probably has its fair share of plot holes, but the action is astutely-directed, the editing is exciting and tight, and the production value is excellent. It's one of the best entrants in the X-Men series and a fantastic summer blockbuster.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1877832/

American Hustle (2013)

5/5

David O. Russell's American Hustle is a phenomenal piece of entertainment. The plot is what it is: interesting but predictable. It is very loosely taken from real-world events, so much so that Russell doesn't even say that it was "based on a true story." Instead he writes that "some of this actually happened." Who knows what did and didn't. But does it even matter? While parts of the story may proceed out of historical necessity, I get the distinct sense that Russell's real joy in writing act after act was to unveil backstories, to reveal motivations, to delve into his characters. He focuses on the people rather than the plot.

Russell's directing is a bit more on point than last year's Silver Linings Playbook. He downplays the camera as an active participant, although it is not quite the invisible observer we are accustomed to. The cinematography and editing are unexciting. He steps back as a director to showcase his actors, and it was the right move. Russell allows his actors to breathe, to inhabit their characters, to follow them wherever they go.

Christian Bale somehow offers us a charismatic, sympathetic view of an intensely unlikeable, unattractive man. Underneath his bad combover is a hyper-functioning brain and below that still is a broken, aching heart. We care for him, although any rational person seeing his character in real life and hearing about his actions would find him repugnant and deplorable. That we are able to cheer for him at the end is a testament to his acting ability. Jennifer Lawrence gives an equally impressive turn as his wife. She unwittingly manipulates, she foolishly destroys, she ferociously loves. She is a mess, a chaos of emotion that falls apart and builds itself anew daily. She finds strength amidst mental illness in such a way that it tears us up. Lawrence makes her character human in the most unexpected of ways, in the simplest of words, in the subtlest of gestures.

I could go on and on about the rest of the cast--Amy Adams and Bradley Cooper deliver perhaps the finest performances of their careers--but I would rather you experience it for yourself. It is one thing to read about these characters; it is an entirely different thing to watch them light up the screen. And seeing this ensemble perform is absolutely mesmerizing.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1800241/

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/

Silver Linings Playbook (2012)

4/5

David O. Russell's Silver Linings Playbook is a delightful and surprising treasure. The story follows Pat (Cooper) on the day of his release from an 8-month stint at a psychiatric hospital. We discover that he has delusional bipolar disorder, that he hates taking his meds, and that he's trying to win his wife back (although she has a restraining order against him). He moves back in with his parents (De Niro, Weaver) while he continues his rehabilitation with a psychiatrist (Kher). On a dinner date with his best friend (Ortiz), he meets Tiffany (Lawrence) and they share an undeniable connection--while talking about the pros and cons of different psych meds. What happens next I'll leave for you to experience firsthand.

The writing and the acting are the film's strongest aspects. The story and dialogue are just the right amount of quirky and comedic to balance its darker tones of mental illness and dysfunctional families. Cooper and Lawrence both give knockout performances that are joys to watch: equal parts ferocity and vulnerability, strength and tenderness. Cooper's violent outbursts are matched by his emotional pain. Lawrence is mature and assured but also naive and scared. They are complex and real, and their chemistry is electric. There is an unexpectedly exhilarating dance number in the movie that has you stunned while watching it, on the edge of your seat and with a grin on your face, worried about the past but excited for the future. It was sensational. But the movie should have ended there, because after that it devolved into a contemporary romantic comedy happily ever after instead of giving us something novel and unique like before.

As a film, Silver Linings Playbook failed to impress me. The shots were mediocre and the editing was substandard. The camerawork was a bit too self-indulgent for me, with almost every shot pushing in or pulling back. And I just can't get rid of how disappointed that ending made me. But none of that invalidates what makes this movie so special. Everything about it just pulsates with life and vitality, enriching our own lives by watching it, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1045658

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/

X-Men: First Class (2011)

3/5

X-Men: First Class is just another mediocre superhero movie. The movie tracks the origins of Professor X (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fassbender) when they battled together against a common enemy, Sebastian Shaw (Bacon), during the Cold War. The plot is trite and unoriginal, the side characters are forgettable cardboard cut-outs, and the dialogue is nauseating. And Beast is just laughable. The rest was a mixed bag. The special effects were either seamless (yay) or appallingly bad (boo). The action sequences were usually pretty tense and exciting. What the movie had going for it was the character development in the young Xavier and Magneto. They were given much more depth and humanity than in the previous X-Men movies, but unfortunately not enough to recommend this movie to any but the most devout of comic book nerds. Overall, I was thoroughly underwhelmed by this movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1270798/