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/

Epic (2013)

3/5

For some reason, I had developed an irrationally strong desire to watch Epic when it was first announced, and this compulsion persisted even after all the middling reviews came out. My guess is that it had something to do with Snow Patrol's The Lightning Strike playing over the very first trailer I saw. Regardless, I came in to this movie with high hopes. But the reviews were accurate: it's not as epic as I wanted it to be.

Epic is a perfectly fine movie. It is entertaining and funny and moving just when it needs to be. The animation is crisp and beautiful and the voice-acting is surprisingly adept (although I kept imagining the actors instead of the characters they were supposed to be playing because their voices were so distinct). Aziz Ansari and Chris O'Dowd just about steal the show as the bumbling sidekicks. The romance between Seyfried and Hutcherson--and even between her and her father, played by Sudeikis--strikes just the right balance between innocence and affection. The plot is a little convoluted and it whips along at a pretty good pace, but it doesn't nearly have the thematic depth or complexity I've come to expect from other animated films. All in all, I would describe this movie as sufficient. It pleases enough to justify the time you spent on it, but it's no Pixar movie.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0848537/

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/

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island (2012)

2/5

Journey 2: The Mysterious Island is a fairly tame 3D adventure flick for kids. The movie is a sequel because it takes place after another movie and has the same main character, but it actually requires no knowledge of the previous film to enjoy it. (Or not enjoy it, if you want to be snarky.) The problems start with the story, which is outright silly. The problems continue with special effects that already look outdated, combined with an incessant use of 3D objects coming out of the screen at you. The story follows a self-proclaimed "Vernian," someone who believes that all of Jules Verne's novels describe real places. The titular island, which houses tiny elephants and gigantic bees, is actually a day away from submerging and becoming Atlantis, which provides the perfect impetus to turn this scientific exploration into an action adventure. The story elements, from the budding romance to the stepfather-son bonding, all felt like checkboxes that producers filled out in an attempt to sell more tickets. The movie's saving grace was Dwayne Johnson, who was able to provide both believable action and comic relief. He is the only reason to see this movie. He is able to add a star to just about any movie just by being in it.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1397514/

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/

The Kids Are All Right (2010)

4/5

The Kids Are All Right is an indie slice-of-life movie about a lesbian couple--Nic (Bening) and Jules (Moore)--whose children (Wasikowska, Hutcherson) decide they want to meet their sperm donor dad (Ruffalo). When they do, he instantly connects to the daughter while the son remains somewhat distant. Eventually he falls in both the kids' favor and they invite him over to meet their parents. Things get a little bit more confusing when Jules starts having sex with him.

As far as the acting goes, Annette Bening is phenomenal in a role that is understated and subtle. There are few flashes of anger, but you can tell her mood precisely by the smallest facial movements. She plays to perfection the entire life of a woman we only get to spend a few hours with, and we see the mistakes of her past and her thoughts of the future. She puts on display so much more than what is written in the script. As far as the script goes, it's good but not great. My big problem with it is the ending. It feels as if they were just shallowly writing everything off, or giving us a wry wink and nod and saying, "We know this movie isn't real and it doesn't matter what happens in the end." Either way, it really didn't satisfy me. I didn't feel any closure whatsoever. On the opposite end, the best thing about the script was its humor (far funnier than some other indie films like Margot at the Wedding).

With a title like The Kids Are All Right, it's begging for immature movie reviewers clamoring that the movie is just all right. But luckily I think it's more than that; it's entertaining, it's moving, it's funny. And it has some fantastic acting. I just wish it had an ending to match.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0842926/