The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Directed by Francis Lawrence.

2013. Rated PG-13, 146 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Woody Harrelson

Donald Sutherland

Phillip Seymour Hoffman

Elizabeth Banks

Jeffrey Wright

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Liam Hemsworth

Jena Malone

Katniss (Lawrence) and Peeta (Hutcherson) are the darlings of the twelve districts after winning the most recent Hunger Games in rather unconventional fashion. President Snow (Sutherland) is quite pissed about it. After all, it was their suddenly blooming love that forced the games to end in such an unorthodox fashion, leaving him and the Capitol looking a bit foolish. This wouldn't be quite so bad if his instincts didn't tell him, correctly, that their relationship is a fraud. He tells Katniss they better play nice for the cameras for the rest of their lives or heads will most definitely, and literally, roll. Those heads belong to her family and friends, of course. Since even that doesn't squash her defiant personality, and the people have made her a symbol of hope, President Snow changes the rules, putting her and Peeta into the next year's games. Their competition this time is made up of prior winners.

One of the things this movie does better than its predecessor is get to the point. That first flick took forever to actually get to the Hunger Games. I understand that in the first movie of a franchise, the setup typically does take longer than it does in sequels. However, in that first flick, it feels unnecessarily long. Like a dog dragging a broken leg, it limped along slowly while we watched Katniss is wardrobe, practicing, and being a talk show guest. Repeatedly. Thankfully, we spend much less time in talk show mode. Generally speaking, I love watching Stanley Tucci perform. In this series, as the host of said talk show, he's just an annoyance. I understand what is trying to be accomplished with this character. It's just not working for me.

Tucci aside, another plus for Catching Fire is the acting of its supporting cast. This more mature group gives us more interesting characters and better portrayals of them. The two standouts being Jeffrey Wright and Jena Malone. Malone gives us someone we're not sure how to take. Wright does what he normally does and disappears into his character. Another newcomer, the late Philip Seymour Hoffman, is his usual excellent self as the Game Master. Among the returnees, Woody Harrelson and Donald Suther land are again very fun to watch. Surprisingy, so is Elizabeth Banks, once more in full drag-queen regalia.

Unfortunately, once we get to the games, it's the stretches between action where this movie, and the series as a whole, continues to fail. These are the times when Katniss and her allies plot the next move and get to know each other a little better. It should also be the time during which the tension is building until that next burst of excitement releases it. Instead, that tension dissipates as the scenes drag on, trying and failing, to establish emotional bonds between the characters. Part of this is due to Katniss herself. We know she cares about her friends and family. However, she comes across so coldly to everyone else that no one else's plight seems to resonate with her until it becomes an imminent part of her own survival. In other words, if she doesn't really care about them until the very moment her life depends on their ability, why should we?

Finally, where the first movie positions itself as social commentary, Catching Fire seems to lack any such aspirations. This is partly due to it being the second movie of what we know will be a quadrilogy. What it is trying to say may become more transparent after subsequent installments are released. No, I didn't read the books and please, do not explain it to me. Another reason is this movie's focus on being a "bigger" movie than its predecessor. It does more, but says less. Still, it is the doing more that makes this a more enjoyable movie than its predecessor. By breezing through the setup quicker, we get a more concise effort, even though it's actually a few minutes longer than the first film. We still hit some snags, but fans of the first should be pleased.

The Hunger Games

Directed by Gary Ross.

2012. Rated PG-13, 142 minutes.

Cast:

Jennifer Lawrence

Josh Hutcherson

Liam Hemsworth

Woody Harrelson

Elizabeth Banks

Stanley Tucci

Lenny Kravitz

Donald Sutherland

Wes Bentley

Isabelle Fuhrman

Willow Shields

Paula Malcomson

Once a year, as penance for an earlier uprising against The Capitol, each of the 12 districts in the post-apocalyptic nation of Panem is required to send one male and one female between the ages of 12 and 18 to participate in The Hunger Games. The 24 “tributes” are shipped off to the Capitol where they’ll train for a couple weeks than head out into the forest where they will literally try to out survive each other. Yes, this means only one of them will leave these battlegrounds alive and be crowned the winner. This person will then be showered with copious amounts of fame and fortune.

The kids are chosen at their annual “Reaping.” Basically, all the adolescents have their name thrown into a bin from which two unlucky contestants are drawn. This year in District 12, barely eligible and obviously weak Primrose Everdeen (Shields) gets picked. Valiantly, her older and sturdier sister Katniss (Lawrence) volunteers to go in her place. It helps her chances that she’s an expert with a bow and arrow. She’ll be joined by Peeta (Hutcherson). No one is kind enough to volunteer for his spot. Off they go to The Capitol. Oh, I almost forgot: they travel with Effie Trinket, one of the district’s head honchos. I only mention her because she’s played by ElizabethBanks in full drag-queen regalia. Also with them is their appointed coach Haymitch Abernathy (Harrelson). He’s a past winner and obviously jaded by the experience.

We get a lengthy section on our heroine training, learning how strong some of the others are, how to play nice with the higher-ups and being introduced to the world. Sorry, I failed to mention that “The Hunger Games” are televised throughout the country. After more than sufficient build-up, we finally get to the games. Teenagers trying to kill each other ensues.

On the surface, it’s a fine movie. The setup is a bit too long as it is working really hard to make sure we like Katniss. Much of it is extraneous energy since she has us wrapped around her finger the moment she volunteers. This part of the film also makes sure we know who the favorites to win are. By default, they serve as villains. We also get to meet a few bad guys who will stay behind the scenes. This way, we’re fully vested in Katniss by the time the action begins. Like I said, it’s overdone but it’s still effective.

For some of us, there is the proverbial 800 pound gorilla in the room: Battle Royale. For those unaware, BR is a 2000 Japanese film with pretty much the same premise. A group of ninth graders are made to go off into the woods and terminate one another until only one remains in the land of the living. The way things play out in both movies makes The Hunger Games essentially a remake, or re-imagining, with a bigger budget, more screen time for adults and far more extravagant costuming.

That said, there is a major difference between the two movies: what they choose to be a metaphor for. BR is a microcosm of the way teenagers interact with one another and of adolescence itself. The cliquish nature of high school and hyperactive teen angst take center stage. THG ignores those things as much as possible. Instead, it’s a riff on our ever-expanding fascination with and the proliferation of reality television. It takes square aim at the logical evolution of a genre in which the stakes are constantly being raised. This is a solid, though still not quite fresh, topic for people in the target audience. However, for those of us old enough to remember such films, it lacks the depth and originality of such fare as The Truman Show or The Running Man.

Taken on its own terms, THG is a solid flick with slightly more on its mind than your average popcorn flick. Still, it never gets preachy. After all, social commentary is not the main purpose here, engaging and entertaining us through a likeable protagonist is. The other purpose is precisely like almost all other big blockbuster movies: setting us up for the sequel.

MY SCORE: 6.5/10

The Eagle

Directed by Kevin Macdonald

2011. Rated PG-13, 114 minutes.

Cast:

Channing Tatum

Jamie Bell

Donald Sutherland

Mark Strong

Tahar Rahim

Denis O’Hare

Dakin Matthews

Ned Dennehy

Julian Lewis Jones

Some years earlier, his father led a group of Roman soldiers into the wilds of 2nd century Great Britain. They were never heard from again. Also lost was the gold eagle each unit takes with them into battle. Now, Marcus Flavius Aquila (Tatum) is himself a garrison commander in the Roman army. He volunteers for a tour of duty in Great Britain in hopes of recovering the eagle and/or his father. As luck would have it, he is severely injured in battle and involuntarily discharged before he even embarks on that mission. After recuperating, he and a British slave who’s life he saved venture out on their own to complete the job he came to do.

The Eagle wants to position our two buddies as having an uneasy relationship. It wants us to think that the lowly slave Esca (Bell) may not be trustworthy. However, the way things play out, we never get that feeling. That’s a major issue for a movie banking on that aspect. It saps the entire production of any tension it might have had if this angle had been better executed. We never feel that our hero is in any serious danger. Even when things seem most bleak we know that his sidekick is merely biding his time.

Our hero is also problematic. Part of this is due to star Channing Tatum and part to the way his part is written. It seems the writers couldn’t make up their mind how great a soldier he is, or isn’t. The same goes for his fluctuating intelligence. He’s smart or dumb depending on what the plot requires at any given moment. It’s much the same for his soldiering skills. For instance, there’s a moment early on where the very faint sound of his enemies wakes him from a dead sleep. Presumably, his quarters are a ways from the fort wall from beyond which the noise is coming. In fact, no one standing guard on the wall itself hears anything. Initially, I’ve no problem with this. It helps establish him as a superior combatant. However, later on he can’t hear or see more enemies only a few feet away when he is on his own with Esca in the middle of the woods and should be at his most alert. It’s a frustrating about face in character. As for Tatum, I just couldn’t buy him as an Ancient Roman commander with a burning passion for recovering a symbolic bird in an effort to clear his family name. I harbor no hatred for Tatum. If you’re movie is set during contemporary times with a suburban/pseudo urban setting and your lead has to be a white guy with a solid street vibe about him, he’s your guy. As a leader of men during the sword and sandal days, not so much.

There are solid and bloody fight scenes so The Eagle isn’t a total loss. However, the dreadfully serious tone combined with a lack of tension means the movie fails to engage us. We’re not particularly enthralled with this man’s quest. Therefore, the movie trudges past on its way to the inevitable ending with precious little in the way of humor or fun.

MY SCORE: 5/10

Horrible Bosses

Directed by Seth Gordon.

2011. Rated R, 98 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Bateman
Jason Sudeikis
Charlie Day
Kevin Spacey
Jennifer Aniston
Colin Farrell
Jamie Foxx
P. J. Byrne
Donald Sutherland

Nick (Bateman), Kurt (Sudeikis), and Dale (Day) are three working stiffs and bestest buddies. Even though they work three separate jobs, each of them hates their boss. After a drunken night of hypotheticals they hatch the idea to kill their overbearing employers. They decide against it when sobriety kicks in. Of course, each then has the one experience that pushes them over the edge. Understandably, the plan is on. Now they just have to figure out how to pull off three murders without getting caught.

Our would-be killers are all solid characters. They take turns bringing the funny. Kurt is the most consistent of the three. He strikes a nice balance between the hyperactive Dale and the somewhat bland Nick. Each actor performs solidly in their roles. Because of them, we like these guys despite watching them in the midst of plotting some heinous acts. It helps that they’re not so savvy criminals. We know when they’re getting scammed. We see them make dumb mistakes.

However, the real strength of this film is in the casting of the bosses. Colin Farrell’s sweaty, balding, kung fu obsessed cokehead is priceless. Kevin Spacey gives us a smug, arrogant jerk like only he can. Yes, they’re both over the top but that’s what is needed to ensure our hatred of them. It also makes us laugh at them. They represent a case of the ridiculous actually working.

As good as Farrell and Spacey are, neither holds a candle to the Hitchcock inspired choice for the movie’s lone female boss. Let me explain. For most of Jimmy Stewart’s career he was as clean cut and wholesome as they come. His everyman looks and “gee willikers” demeanor made him feel like a slice of apple pie brought to life. He was the walking embodiment of Americana. Then came Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window and Vertigo. Stewart is decidedly against type in both, a sexual deviant. Essentially, he’s a peeping tom in the former and a stalker in the latter. In HB, the corrupted All-American is Jennifer Aniston, the ultimate girl next door. Although she’s been oft criticized for being vanilla, there have been scenes in other movie’s where she’s acted provocatively. Here, that’s her entire role. More than provocative, she’s downright trashy. She says lots of things you might only hear in videos on those websites you’re not supposed to visit at work. She nails every nasty line. For my money, it’s 2011’s best female comedic performance (yes, I saw Bridesmaids). The legion of men who already drool over her will either be thrown into overdrive or completely turned off by her walk on the dark side.

Aniston’s new-found sluttiness aside, the movie sinks or swims with its premise. It’s a solid one. The plot surrounding it unfolds well enough with a nice twist, here and there. When the bosses aren’t on the screen, the jokes are hit-and-miss, so it’s not a comic masterpiece. It is fun, has some real laugh-out-loud moments and some terrific work by its cast.

MY SCORE: 7/10

The Kentucky Fried Movie

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Mechanic

Directed by Simon West.
2011. Rated R, 92 minutes.
Cast:
Jason Statham
Ben Foster
Tony Goldwyn
Donald Sutherland
Jeff Chase
Mini Anden

Bishop (Statham) is a gifted hitman specializing in unconventional kills. He’s also all business. So when his next target is his only friend in the world, he only raises a small fuss before doing the job. As expected, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Bishop finding out what’s below the surface by accident ensues. The main thing that happens isn’t quite an accident, but definitely not a planned event. Bishop meets his buddy’s estranged son Steve (Foster). Yes, the same buddy he just killed. By what can’t be considered good logic, he takes Steve under his wing, training him in the ways of assassination. A remake of the 1972 film starring Charles Bronson.

For whatever problems this movie has, and it does have problems, time is not among them. It’s a brisk ninety minutes that feels like sixty. Like it, or not, sitting through it doesn’t feel like a chore. You hit the close button on your DVD player and a few moments later, the credits are rolling. In an era where lots of movies stretch themselves out to well over two hours for no good reason other than justifying their bloated budgets, this element is refreshing.

With that previous stuff said, it can move a little too fast. Another ten or fifteen minutes wouldn’t have hurt anything. In fact, it would’ve helped things develop into something approaching logical. Bishop continually and willfully breaks his own rules for no apparent reason. Meanwhile, Steve almost magically becomes an expert “mechanic” (that’s the slang here for hitman). The overall effect is that the story is strangely more preposterous than the action. By the way, the action is very well done. The movie is also predictable. It pretends we don’t know who’s who. However, within five seconds of him appearing on the screen we know the identity of the villain. This robs us of intrigue and possibly having empathy for our heroes. The very end throws us a nice curveball, but its not quite enough to save the whole thing. That’s because instead of being engrossed in the story, we’re merely watching things happen in front of us.

MY SCORE: 5.5/10

Astro Boy

Directed by David Bowers.
2009. Rated PG, 94 minutes.
Cast:
Freddie Highmore
Nicolas Cage
Kristen Bell
Donald Sutherland
Bill Nighy
Samuel L. Jackson
Eugene Levy
Charlize Theron

Plot: After his son is killed during a demonstration gone awry, Dr. Tenma (Cage) builds a robotic version of his tyke outfitted with the latest weaponry and boosters in his boots.

The Good: It manages to be fun without being overly stupid. It doesn’t talk down to its target audience. It also resists the urge to cater to parents and doesn’t purposely put in a bunch of jokes that they know will go over the heads of the kids watching. When we get action, it’s a blast watching Astro Boy zip back and forth across the screen.

The Bad: The go-green subtext is a bit heavy-handed. However, the kids may not pick up on that. What they might notice is that both of our villains are a bit underdeveloped. They’re not as menacing as they could’ve been.

The Ugly: Did they really have to give him "butt guns"?

Recommendation: This is a fun, quick hour and a half. As far as kiddie flicks go, its not in the class of the best animated movies of the last couple years, but it’s successful in its own right. The kids will be thoroughly entertained and adults will probably not be squirming to get out of the room.

The Opposite View: Amy Biancolli, San Francisco Chronicle

What the Internet Says: 6.4/10 on imdb.com (6/23/10), 48% on rottentomatoes.com, 53/100 on metacritic.com


MY SCORE: 6/10