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 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/

Margin Call (2011)

4/5

Margin Call chronicles the beginning of the recent economic downfall from the point of view of the insiders within Lehman Brothers who first discovered the impending collapse. Although the script occasionally feels repetitive or simplistic, it is sharp, incisive, and filled with thematics that span far more than this particular financial crisis. It is augmented by a spectacular cast with exceptional performances. It's been a while since I've seen Kevin Spacey in such a phenomenal role, and he does not disappoint here. He brings maturity, subtlety, and humility to a towering character. He delivers his lines with precision, power, and nuance.

The director manages to turn the talk-heavy screenplay into a thrilling, energetic film (although perhaps punctuated by a few too many shots of shocked faces). He makes investment banking vernacular exciting, focusing on power plays to allow us to witness experts do what they do best. For me, nothing is as awesome as seeing professionals perform, and we get all that and more in Margin Call. Highly recommended.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/

Easy A (2010)

3/5

Easy A is a forgettable teen comedy about a girl (Stone) who is way too smart for high school. Once a rumor is spread by her friend Rhiannon (Michalka) that she lost her virginity to a college guy on a first date, she earns a reputation as an easy lay. She helps a gay friend (Byrd) pretend he's straight by having fake sex with him at a party. The rumors continue to swirl among the popular crowd (Badgley) and offended Christians (Bynes), while the truth makes its way around the losers of the high school. Eventually she realizes that her actions may have bigger consequences than she thinks.

The movie is unimpressive in almost every way except for its dependence on clichés and 80's movies references. The cinematography is bland and the pacing was somewhat uneven. The writing as a whole was superficial. I never really understood anybody's motivations for doing what they were doing and the pointless narration in the form of a webcast didn't help. But this movie is hilarious. The dialogue is sharp and witty and Emma Stone delivers her lines with precise comic timing. The jokes are even better when it comes to the adults (Haden Church, Kudrow, Clarkson, Tucci), each of which are shining, unique gems in an otherwise dull film. But that's not enough to make this film memorable. Watch it if you want a quick laugh, but don't expect anything more than that.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1282140/

Burlesque (2010)

4/5

Burlesque is a pretty spectacular musical. (I guess technically it's not a musical because the characters never really break into song and dance; it's just part of their performance.) The movie stars Christina Aguilera as Ali, a small-town girl who wants to hit it big in LA. She discovers a burlesque lounge owned and operated by Tess (Cher) and is instantly mesmerized by it. She tries everything to get on stage and dance with them, but settles for waitressing there just so she can watch. She befriends the bartender (Gigandet) and, after her apartment gets broken into, becomes his roommate. She finally gets her chance to show everyone what she has when they hold auditions. They find it impossible to take their eyes off her. And you will too.

The songs are a mix of old-school show tunes and more modern, upbeat songs. Both are excellent, although I definitely preferred the newer songs. Cher's "Welcome to Burlesque" had me stunned from the very beginning of the movie. Christina Aguilera's "Show Me How You Burlesque" closes the film off with the same flair. Both will leave you in awe. The dancing is fantastic all around, but none of the numbers impressed me as much as those two songs did on their own. None of the other songs did either, even though several of them stood out ("Express," "You Haven't Seen the Last of Me"). If you're looking for a movie with great singing and dancing, then this is the movie to watch.

The rest of the technical aspects were a mixed bag. The cinematography and editing were better than I expected them to be, but there were some noticeable areas where it could have been improved. The acting was pretty good for the most part--especially the side characters--but there is this one scene between Aguilera and Gigandet that was laughably bad. I was actually laughing during it, to the point where my girlfriend got mad at me for it. That scene alone made me consider dropping it down to 3 stars. Overall, definitely recommended for any musical fan. And for any fan of Cher or Christina, this is a must-see.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1126591/

The Lovely Bones (2009)

2/5

Peter Jackson's adaptation of Alice Sebold's book The Lovely Bones is an interesting concept, but one that I did not find fulfilling or satisfying. It felt depressing instead of uplifting, with a poorly defined purpose that was carried out even more poorly. The plot follows 14-year-old Susie Salmon (Ronan) after being murdered by neighbor George Harvey (Tucci). Her death is a terrifying, painful, and drawn out one. It devastates and nearly destroys her family; her mother (Weisz) copes through acceptance and isolation and her father (Wahlberg) through denial and investigation. The police fail to locate the man after two years, and he prepares to strike again.

Technically, the film appears competent but has a number of underlying imperfections. Jackson uses editing expertly to build tension, however, the mood shifts at a brisk and almost too rapid pace. The audience is never quite sure what emotion to feel at what time. The directing also felt timid and uncertain, as if Jackson didn't think everything out and just started shooting. The beginning scenes hide Tucci's face, as if his identity would be a mystery throughout the film, but after about 5 minutes we find out who he is. Did Jackson not realize that a good 90% of the movie would be based around us knowing who he is or was there some ultra-subtle purpose that I missed?

I'm confused as to Jackson's motivations for a number of other scenes, especially those concerning Susie. I don't know what the "in between" represents or how any of her postmortem emotions are new, interesting, or even relevant. This newfangled purgatory is baffling, bizarre, and unnecessary, although I guess that's what separates it from other movies about similar topics. Unfortunately, I still found it to be an empty metaphor with uncertain meaning. The CGI is another area that appeared magical at first, but on closer inspection was just not quite good enough to be realistic. It was off by just a small amount, but enough to make you realize that what you were watching wasn't filmed but made, and that made it stand out even more. He spent far too much time on special effects and far too little time fortifying the story, understanding its meaning, and figuring out how best to show that to the audience.

I left the theater imagining that this was a great movie, or at least a good one. The more I thought about it, the more I realized that it had less meaning than I attributed to it and more problems than I originally recognized. Don't let Jackson's infamous special effects trick you: this movie is nothing special, and not worthy of your time or money. It's a simple story told simplistically. Other movies have tread more tenderly, examined the topics more sensitively, and forced you to think more honestly and deeply about your feelings than this movie did. For my money, I'd rather see In the Bedroom or Little Children again. Pass on The Lovely Bones.

IMDb link: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0380510/

Deconstructing Harry (1997)

4/5

Deconstructing Harry is a hilarious foray into a neurotic writer's life and mind. Harry Block travels to upstate New York where he's going to be honored by his old college. On the way, he gets a chance to reflect on the choices he's made, both in his writing and in his life. His stories and the characters that inhabit them stem from real people and real events, which has often caused anger and resentment by those whose secret and personal lives he's put on display through his work. I love this movie because it is both meaningful and entertaining. I found myself laughing the entire time. But it also made me think about this writer's life, how he took advantage of it, and what his creations (or are they merely alterations?) mean to himself and to others. Deconstructing Harry is an absolutely wonderful and delightful fantasy about real life that is witty, nostalgic, and philosophical all at once. I loved the acting by all parties and especially enjoyed spotting soon-to-be-famous actors in small roles (Tobey Maguire, Paul Giamatti, Jennifer Garner, etc.). I am in love with the way he made Robin Williams (and himself, later) blurry and out of focus while the rest of the scene was crisp and sharp. I wish I knew how he did it. You can see Allen's creativity positively brimming and overflowing in this movie (although not as profusely as in Annie Hall).

I fail to understand the purpose of the neurotic editing, except perhaps as a banal and gimmicky way of putting the director's own flightiness and anxiety into his work, as Harry Block replicates his life in his writing. Using this editing style to start the movie was extremely off-putting. Some scenes feel rather pointless, without adding much to the table in terms of plot, humor, or pathos. Also, most of the movie is told from Harry Block's point of view, and as such takes on a cynical and misogynistic quality, which obviously may not be for everyone (take his version of Hell, for example). Otherwise, though, a thoroughly fantastic movie that I enjoyed and appreciated from start to finish.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0118954/

Lucky Number Slevin (2006)

3/5

Lucky Number Slevin is, all things considered, a pretty entertaining movie. It's very fun, clever, and exciting, with an incredibly well-thought out twist at the end to make you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately, because it's set up that way, it probably doesn't have a very good replay value. The twists at the end got a bit too ludicrous to be believable, and certainly unnecessary. And in explaining every minutiae of plot twists, the pacing suffers. It is especially exasperating when you've already figured out half of it, but they spend five minutes explaining anyway. The action was almost nonexistent; where present, it was obscured by bad editing techniques and flashy special effects. The camerawork was absolutely atrocious, which probably was one reason the editing was so jarring and gimmicky. While the idea was good, the script itself was pretty terrible; other than a snicker here or there, it was entirely bland and self-indulgent. But all in all, the movie is supposed to be a gangster/con movie, and it pulls it off pretty well.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0425210/

Road to Perdition (2002)

5/5

From start to finish, every frame of this film is jaw-dropping in its beauty. You will be stunned by the cinematography, which relegates the powerful script and precise acting to the back of your mind. Even so, it contains scenes of heart-stopping suspense to rival even Hitchcock's greatest works. It also manages to achieve a certain poignancy through Tom Hanks's quiet and restrained interactions with his son and equally quiet and restrained interactions with his father-figure (Paul Newman in a stellar performance, one of the best of his entire career).

The emotional impact of the film becomes somewhat muted due to its obligatory sense of fatalism, in the same vein as the film noirs of the 1940's. To me, the movie's cold, distant mood fits the piece exceptionally well. The terse manner in which the characters speak is also similar to noir, although the dialogue itself is vastly different (where those movies were flashy, Road to Perdition is earthy). Quite simply, it says all that needs to be said and nothing more.

Sam Mendes directs Road to Perdition with the same subtlety and artistic insight found in American Beauty, but the flourishes are more spectacular: A silent, slow-motion massacre in the rain that resembles a dance more closely than a murder, followed by the words "I'm glad it's you." A long take tracking Hanks as he shoots a man in his bathtub, the bright red blood on the white tile sharply contrasting with the pervading dark grey tones. You will remember these scenes; this movie is unforgettable.

IMDb link: http://imdb.com/title/tt0257044/