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/

A Most Wanted Man (2014)

2/5

Philip Seymour Hoffman's last film is a maddening, frustrating, underwhelming film. Although the movie was described as a spy movie, I somehow mistook that to mean espionage thriller. Silly me. It is certainly about spies, but it focuses more on the bureaucracy of their lifestyle rather than the intrigue of the job. The acting was, unsurprisingly, the best part, with Hoffman delivering a phenomenal final performance. He leaves an indelible impression when the credits finally start to roll.

But it takes so long for those credits to roll. The movie was painfully slow and plodding. And while some individual shots were beautiful, there was too much lingering on meaningless objects that extend the length of the movie without deepening your understanding of the film. I suppose I shouldn't have been all that surprised, since A Most Wanted Man was directed by Anton Corbijn. (Corbijn also directed The American, another overly-stylized "spy movie" that would rather focus on lofty existential crises instead of espionage.) Even knowing this is the last Hoffman project, I still can't recommend this movie to any but the most diehard of fans.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1972571/

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/

The Ides of March (2011)

4/5

George Clooney's The Ides of March is a well-made, high-quality political thriller. Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) is running for president with campaign managers Paul Zara (Hoffman) and Steven Meyers (Gosling). Although Morris seems like an ideal candidate, problems start cropping up when his opponent's campaign manager, Tom Duffy (Giamatti), tells Steven some damaging news in strict privacy. Things get even more complicated when Steven gets romantically involved with a young intern (Wood) who has a few secrets of her own.

Technically, the film is impressive. The Ides of March showcases just about the finest ensemble cast in recent memory, perhaps ever. Although Gosling is billed as the lead, each of the supporting cast delivers stand-out performances so good that it makes Gosling's acting look simple and immature in comparison. While the script has sharp dialogue, it ultimately lacks the originality and creativity to make the story stand out. Clooney's directing, on the other hand, has matured significantly since his debut Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Instead of flashy filmmaking, he goes for simple, understated techniques to enhance the overall experience. Subtle moves, like close-ups that build tension by gradually getting tighter, show his command of cinematic technique. All the individual parts come together to make a cohesive whole, but nothing jumps out to make me sing its praises. This is a solid film that does one thing well, but there's nothing revolutionary going on here.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1124035/

Moneyball (2011)

4.9/5

Moneyball is a superb film about a revolution in the game of baseball. Billy Beane (Pitt), the general manager for the Oakland A's, is losing his top three players to higher-paying teams. While trying to find the cheapest "good" players he can, he discovers Peter Brand (Hill). Brand is an econ major who enjoys watching baseball, but he brings with him a new way to build a team, using statistical analysis to figure out which players are undervalued because of perceived defects (e.g., a pitcher who throws funny, a batter who waddles). Instead of scouting for the all-star with good looks, a clean swing, and a hot girlfriend, Beane and Brand are searching for the people with the highest on-base percentage and recruiting them for dirt cheap.

Although based on a true story, the only reason this movie feels as authentic as it does is because of the genuine performances from the stellar cast. We see regret in Pitt's face, an overwhelming sense of inadequacy from an actor we would expect the exact opposite out of. In Hill we see the everyman with a bright idea without the confidence to stand behind it. The dialogue is pristine and the cinematography and editing are crisp. Every scene is filled with energy and humor and Miller transforms all that verve into a lively, entertaining film. Much like Sorkin's previous screenplay, this one is about a small idea that challenges the status quo and changes a way of life. This movie is ultimately about progress, at the social level and at the individual level, despite being a "baseball movie." I am not a big fan of sports movies, but this is one of the best. Moneyball is a movie that just happens to be about sports, and an incredible one at that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1210166/

Jack Goes Boating (2010)

4/5

The plot of Jack Goes Boating focuses on the blossoming relationship between Jack (Hoffman) and Connie (Ryan) and the slowly disintegrating marriage of their close friends Clyde (Ortiz) and Lucy (Rubin-Vega). The movie is based off a play of the same name (with Hoffman reprising his stage role). Some of it feels much better suited to a film than a play while some of it follows the opposite logic. Its theatrical roots are very clearly evident: the whole movie is basically a collection of conversations with the occasional city shot interspersed between people talking about the events going on in their lives. We witness very little with our own eyes. I wish Hoffman had spent more time in the adaptation so that this film shows instead of tells. However, there were two things about the film that could not be replicated on stage. One was the close-up shots of the characters (because Hoffman "wanted to see them think") and the second was the "visualizations" that Jack does to prepare himself for a new endeavor. This one scene sticks out in my head where we see Jack leave his swim practice and walk over a bridge. He stops in the middle, looks out at the cars passing underneath, and lowers his head. He closes his eyes and suddenly he is in a swimming pool. We see what he sees and then we see it blend with the reality of his situation--and it is a remarkably poignant moment.

The best thing I can say about this movie is that it stays with you. As seems to be more and more common with independent films, the two leads are awkward and risk-averse, fearful of relationships due to perceptions of their own quirks and shortcomings. I left the theater not thinking much of them, but the characters wouldn't leave my mind. I began to see the depth and realism imbued in the actors' performances, and the tragedy and the hope that their stories bring. It made an impact on me. The romance between Jack and Connie is tender and heartfelt, the frustration between Clyde and Lucy is left appropriately below the surface, but you can see them struggling at every moment to maintain the appearance of a wonderful marriage. And despite some of the film's flaws, I think that the movie's ultimate goal was to make the audience think and wonder about the life of the characters before the movie begins and after the movie ends. It succeeds on that point admirably well.

Philip Seymour Hoffman's directorial debut is surprisingly adept visually, but on the whole was not as impressive as I was hoping it would be. Apart from certain shots and visual flairs, most of the cinematic elements simply serve the purpose of turning this play into a movie, and have no inherent artistic quality in and of themselves. It's not a poor first feature by any means, but it's certainly not the best I've seen. Watch it if you are a fan of Philip Seymour Hoffman or indie romances with oddball characters, but understand that it may not be exactly what you expect.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1278379/

Synecdoche, New York (2008)

2/5

Synecdoche, New York follows Philip Seymour Hoffman as a theatre director who receives a "genius" scholarship that allows him the freedom to realize his lifelong theatrical vision without any financial distractions. He decides to makes a play with a universal message; he wants it to be about everything and everyone. He replicates New York City in a gigantic warehouse with millions of extras. Eventually, he starts casting actors to play the people in his own life, including himself, as he watches them. And it just gets weirder and weirder from there. Helming this bizarre, surreal pic is Charlie Kaufman himself, the brilliant writer behind Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, and Adaptation. I don't know what goes on in Kaufman's head, but I want nothing more to do with it unless a skilled director is tempering it to something comprehensible. Because this whole production was just a confusing mess.

The movie's one saving grace was its humor. It was ubiquitous and off the charts. Even when I was frustrated and annoyed by the film's seeming impenetrable complexity and nebulous thematics, Kaufman's writing could still make me laugh. And that's really the ony positive thing I have to say about this movie. I do not ever want to see another movie that Charlie Kaufman both writes and directs. Ever.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0383028/

Doubt (2008)

3/5

Doubt, a movie by John Patrick Shanley based on his play of the same name, is about a nun (Meryl Streep) in a Catholic school who suspects the priest (Philip Seymour Hoffman) of molesting a young child. As far as the acting goes, this movie is the one to see. Shanley is able to bring out amazing performances from his entire cast--I had no idea Amy Adams could pull out the tour de force she did. The others are perhaps superior acting jobs, and theirs are definitely more extensive and sustained, but Adams's portrayal of a recently-hired and innocent nun was the revelation for me. She exuded such emotion--such tenderness and honesty--that I was completely beside myself with empathy.

In addition to the acting, I was impressed by Deakins's cinematography, which you could tell Shanley was trying to use to separate the movie from the play. When adapting a play to the silver screen, you're losing the vivacity and involvement of a live performance, so the film needs to bring something else to the table, which has historically been in the form of cinematography. But while the cinematography was excellent, it wasn't enough to make it a memorable adaptation. The rest of the movie was not as great as I had anticipated. The script was underwhelming. Being a Tony- and Pulitzer-winning play, I was expecting phenomenal. And phenomenal is not what I got. I loved the dialogue, but the story could have used a lot of work. Everything is hinted at, bushes are beaten around, and nothing is revealed. Even if you pay strict attention the entire time, it's easy to miss out on huge plot points if you're not thinking the same thing they are. Still, the movie was pretty much what I expected, but just a bit weaker in quality than I hoped for. Definitely watch it if the trailer appealed to you.

Oh, and apparently Streep's glasses were anachronistic, but I did not find that to be distracting.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0918927/

The Big Lebowski (1998)

4/5

The first time I saw The Big Lebowski, I was a bit underwhelmed. I had heard the superlatives thrust about in zealous reviews, but at that time I was unfamiliar with the Coens and I didn't know "what it was that they did." Now I know, and I am truly impressed by their work here. Their inimitable style--from the precisely-crafted dialogue to the beautifully-envisioned compositions--is in full force in this movie. Unforgettable characters have emerged from forgettable roles. Simple phrases have become generational mottos. This is a movie that will remain in the collective cultural memory for a long time to come.

The humor finds itself in what the characters do and do not say and how they say it; it finds itself in their actions but more importantly in their motivations; it finds itself in the times, the places, and the moods of these individuals we slowly grow to appreciate if not love (thanks to narration by a "stranger"). While it is not particularly rare for me to laugh during a movie, it is hard for me to remember laughing so loudly, forcefully, and obnoxiously before this one.

Even so, the animated dream sequences are dated. I really don't like special effects that don't hold up over time. But there is a far more significant underlying problem I have with the film. As when I saw it the first time, I have trouble finding a point to it--something I can apply to my daily life more than simply quoting hilarious lines and/or putting them in my movie quotes quizzes. Maybe this movie is just entertainment, but I think the Coens should do more than that. I certainly know they can. But the question is whether or not I got anything more out of it than hearty laughs and good memories; and what is the answer? Does anyone have an answer in the affirmative, because I very much would like to love this movie more than I already do, and that is one major hurdle it must jump. Still, I would pop this movie in the DVD player in a heartbeat if I ever needed a quick laugh. And it's definitely worth watching if you haven't seen it already.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118715/

Charlie Wilson's War (2007)

4/5

Charlie Wilson's War is definitely one of Mike Nichols's finest films. Though on the surface it is an entertaining romp through an extravagant Congressman's fight to stave off Russians in Afghanistan during the Cold War, look deeper and you will find a relevant and timely cautionary tale on how the US handles foreign affairs. It urges us to hold our congratulations and anger; we don't yet know the full consequences of our actions. What is the final result? "We'll see."

The most impressive part about this hilarious movie is the acting. Tom Hanks is perfectly fluid, matching suavity with intelligence. He fully embodies his lovable character. Philip Seymour Hoffman is my favorite though. With a grimy demeanor, his sarcasm manages to piss nearly everyone off. But it just made me love him more. I actually thought Julia Roberts's character was worthless. She seemed like a minor character that was artificially blown up to match the star power of the actress.

I really disliked the war/fighting footage. It looked cheesy and fake and it was almost entirely unnecessary. I wish it had been completely cut out. Despite my complaint with the editing, I still found the pacing phenomenal. I was constantly and consistently entertained. This is in large part due to the wonderful writing--dialogue is something Nichols has always been able to direct exceptionally well. Taken as a whole, the movie is a wonderful joy ride with a message and it goes highly recommended by me.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0472062/

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007)

3/5

Before the Devil Knows You're Dead is a flawlessly realized melodrama thriller, but the technical mastery Sidney Lumet has over the medium does not save the movie from its absolutely ridiculous story. It is about two brothers who need money; naturally they plot a robbery of their own parents' jewelry store. Something goes wrong, and the rest of the movie deals with the aftereffects of their grievous error in judgment. By the end of the movie, when everyone's life had spiraled wildly out of control and every character has made irreversible mistakes, I got up and left the theater in a hurry. Why? Because it was so spectacularly unbelievable. And I mean Snakes on a Plane unbelievable, accentuated even more so by the relative normalcy that preceded it. The characters morph from seemingly intelligent men to brainless psychopaths. These characters are not real; they are preposterous caricatures. I cannot fathom their thought processes or their motivations. But apparently other people could.

If you can deal with the single hang-up that I had about the movie (namely the poppycock masquerading as characters and plot), you will probably fall in love with it. Because the movie is technically brilliant. Sidney Lumet really is at a high point cinematically (albeit an extreme low point fictionally). The nonlinear storytelling was powerful, adding depth and tension to a rather simple story. It tantalizes you by giving you what you want in measured amounts, like a calculating drug dealer. I guess that's not a great analogy, but it works. The acting is awesome. They really make the insane characters seem insane. But seriously, the emotions on display were raw and real, and props go out to all the actors. I hope you see it if you find it interesting, because it seems I'm in the minority regarding my disbelief of characters and plot. Be your own judge.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0292963/