REVIEW: The Hunger Games (2012)

This is the newest young adult novel phenomenon, The Hunger Games, originally written by Suzanne Collins. The book was good and while the premise wasn’t anything too original, it was a solid, well done story for the young adult demographic. Now we have the movie, and it is a huge, searing epic with a ton of great things about it – I mean damn. I don’t remember being this blown away by something based on a book I had already read in a long time. The Hunger Games rules, and I am here to tell you why, so let’s do that, shall we?

Director: Gary Ross

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson

Website: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1392170/

The story is a dystopian tale of a world far in the future, where each year young children are randomly selected from their ‘districts’ to fight to the death in “The Hunger Games,” which is passed off as a grand and fun-filled celebration of sorts by the corrupt, spoilt “Capitol” government city. The lead character is Katniss Everdeen, who subverts the usual and volunteers to be the tribute for her district so her younger sister does not have to. She enters into a strange relationship with fellow tribute Peeta and the two have to fight off 22 others in a game for their lives.

The main reason this works so well as a movie is that The Hunger Games was a very visual story, even in the book – it required you to see a lot of the things happening to get the full effect. I’m not one to decry the power of imagination and the benefits of a good page-turning book, but the massive effect The Hunger Games movie has on the viewer is just undeniable – everything feels big. There is a big epic undercurrent here that turns this rather bleak dystopian story into a swinging, mighty hammer of destruction that will just demolish you.

The action is a full-throttle festival of mayhem that works despite the sometimes overly shaking camera, and the dramatic moments are heartfelt and truly tragic at times. At one point a character, a young child, dies, and the effect is absolutely heartbreaking in how they present the scene. I won’t spoil too much, but I always think tragic moments like these are the cornerstones of a great epic, adding much needed weight to the situation. Everything feels like it matters, and because the people making the movie were so clearly into it, you will be, too.

The acting is just great, with Jennifer Lawrence, previously of Winter’s Bone, giving one of the best lead-heroine performances I’ve seen in a movie in the last few years as Katniss. She is a kick-ass lead, tough as nails, but also capable of being kind, and endowed with certain flaws that make her human. It’s the subtleties in this performance that really make it shine, like her conversation with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) in the beginning – their relationship is very well detailed and shaded, and it feels like two very real people in the midst of something abnormal and hard to deal with.

The fact that this is a dystopian story with a highly un-relatable plot and a futuristic setting is never a deterrent to the excellent characterization, and Lawrence’s Katniss is charismatic, relatable and believable. Much better than crap like the Children of Men movie, which pretty much took the good characters from the book and dialed them way down into the background as cardboard cutouts – ugh. This is a much better dystopian-world story.

Other great performances include Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, their trainer and mentor for the games. In the book you get to see a lot more of him, but the movie makes use of his shorter screen-time very well. He is a character haunted by the past, having survived a Hunger Games some time long ago, and though he hides it a lot by drinking, you can tell he’s hurting inside. He feels desperately sorry for the two tributes and resentful toward the Capitol making them do this in the first place. One of Harrelson’s best performances in years. Josh Hutcherson as Peeta is good, and he conveys the lovelorn-but-tough boy character very well, although he seemed a bit subdued at times – most of the focus was on Lawrence/Katniss a lot of the time.

The directing is pretty raw, and contains a lot of shaky-cam visuals, which I admit is a good tactic to make the whole movie seem more gritty and hard-assed. But sometimes during the really intense action scenes it gets a bit too much, and just feels like the cameraman was having a seizure in the studio. The special effects are top notch – witness the scene where the forest burns down, or the one where Peeta and Katniss ride out on their chariot, endowed in black leather and burning flames. Great stuff.

Now, of course this is a commentary on voyeurism and the blood-thirsty nature of much of today’s reality television – that much is obvious. It’s not a new message, but it’s delivered competently and the conviction with which it is presented is chilling and poignant. A lot of these scenes and characters feel so real that you will begin to feel that you shouldn’t be watching and propagating this kind of violence yourself. But the over-arching purpose is meaningful and necessary – and should not be missed.

This is a great film for its huge presence, and it makes you feel like you are literally in the middle of the battlefield. Most fantasy/sci fi movies can’t do that this well. The Hunger Games boasts brutal action, astounding acting talents from young up-and-comings, some chilling social commentary and as icing on the cake, some really wonderful visuals and special effects that make the whole thing a treat for the eyes. Hell, this was just a superb start to the “Blockbuster season,” and I can’t wait to see the sequel hopefully next year. If you like action movies or dystopian science fiction, The Hunger Games is about to rock your boat. Absolutely awesome.

Review: Easy A (2010) TH

Imaginary foreplay is the newest rage

"Easy A" is about a mixup that spirals out of control in a moderately populated town high school in California that blends literature, religious fanaticism, homages to '80s John Hughes flicks as well as adolescents at their peak with hormones. This is frequently narrated with snappy dialogue that's self-aware of its every move to a fault, as it often arrives at conclusions even before it allows the viewer to. It includes some humorously awkward situations of high school life, as well as pokes fun at other teen flicks even though it ironically embraces some of the same cliches. Minus the honesty and self-degradation and it's still riding as a passenger on the same train.

Olive Penderghast (Emma Stone) is overheard in the ladies room by the do-gooder Marianne Bryant (Amanda Bynes) when she tells her best friend Rhi (Aly Michalka) that she slept with a fictional guy named George despite still being a virgin to dodge going on another uncomfortable camping trip. Marianne, being the antagonist of the story and the moral crusader she is, sticks her nose high and uses the modern day equivalent of a rumor mill--text messages and social networks--to self-righteously put Olive, who was previously hidden from view, back in her place. Or so she thought. Olive has a hide thicker than a rhino and attempts to use reverse psychology on her hecklers and simultaneously fake it till she makes it about her own dating status. Marianne's lackeys come at her but she's like instant oatmeal with comebacks. After getting in trouble over calling one the "T" word, she serves detention with Brandon (Dan Byrd)--a gay kid who's made fun of and gets into fights--and he begs her to pretend to have sex with him so people will lay off his back. They go to a party so the socially elite can be a witness and both put on a noisy stir in the bedroom while none of the drunkards are the wiser.

Why this charade wasn't stopped short was because Olive has liberal, adoptive parents who still think they're cool and trust that she'll make the right choices and correct her own mistakes. The overly honest mom played by Patricia Clarkson is hilarious because she says everything the daughter doesn't want to hear and doesn't always come with the best advice. Olive goes about in seductive outfits with an "A" stitched on relating to a literature story called "The Scarlet Letter" and takes it all in with stride as to whether she's gawked at or dismissed. From what at first started out as having sympathy for Brandon, turns into a gift-card giving business where she pretends to give nooky to unconfident guys who want the status but without actually doing the physical deed. This part of the story doesn't exactly transition due to it never being explained that she's greedy or desperately needs money. Though despite her cunning wit that's twice her age, she still seems a little naive with the trappings of a teen as to what she's doing and without exactly thinking about the afterwards. It has moments of causing the pacing to get lost in the shuffle and her character development to feel up and down: one moment helping those who can't help themselves, to going with the flow and then back again when she volunteers to take the rap for someone other than a student. After a date gone bad and a meet up gone right, she wants people to revert their stances to get her life back in order until she finds out people's true colors.

"Easy A" seems like an abstinence ploy within a ploy, but I digress this isn't out to make a major point about the subject of promiscuity besides to say that you should own up to your own actions and not perpetuate notions if you didn't actually do any action. This is more sarcastic, playful and clever than roll-on-the-floor funny--partly because it seems too well scripted than naturally delivered--but it comes with a relating factor that a chunk of teens go through when it comes time for blossoming sexuality: how to tell what they like, how to go about finding it and most importantly how to do it. Not to mention double standards of girls and boys, and peer pressure to do it and then an opposite pressure not to do it. This has an original take on an age old idea that covers common ground but came with some contrived caricatures such as the I-know-exactly-what-to-say knight in shining armor conveniently showing up at just the right moment despite being peppered throughout and giving a nod to John Cusack. Is that supposed to qualify as a reward? Not to mention what sucked out intrigue was a chunk of the story feels laid out like a spoon fed blueprint with easy little chapters and nearly every nuance told to what's going on even though the story is fairly simple on its own. Fortunately this did right by not having any closing morals pushed on the audience rather than letting them choose themselves where they stand.

Director: Will Gluck (Fired Up!)
Starring: Emma Stone, Amanda Bynes, Stanley Tucci, Patricia Clarkson, Thomas Haden Church, Lisa Kudrow, Malcolm McDowell
Website: IMDB

Review: Captain America: The First Avenger (2011) TH

An Uncle Sam who gets his hands dirty

While other superheroes are just out to stop thugs and fight crime for what the police and average citizens can't handle, instead Captain America is a political savior with a chunk of the world in his sights: someone who has a knack for heroics, team leadership and is capable of changing the tides of war with not only his brawn but his determination and unselfish attitude.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" is set during World War II and like "X-Men: First Class" it creates an alternate universe with shared commonalities to the past, as what's unfolding isn't just working in the shadows like, say, "National Treasure," rather it's stepping out to the light to make its own substitute history with different names and faces. In doing so it manages to pose a series of what if questions: What if Germany perfected scientific weapons before the US? What if one man could actually make a significant difference in war? What if they had more advanced artillery and technology in the '40s and how would it have panned out otherwise? Hitler is only mentioned with mock and referenced talk, but instead the main Axis bad guy named Johann Schmidt (Weaving) is at the forefront with possibly more ambition than the tiny mustached dictator could hope. Nazis and swastikas aren't delved into but instead an organization/political party/cult named "HYDRA" with a different but still threatening emblem to wave.

A scrawny guy named Steve Rogers (Evans) from Brooklyn, who has the underdeveloped frame of an average 13 year old but the courage of a warrior, is doing all but holding his breath to enlist in the military so he can serve his country despite health issues and a Hobbit stature. After continually getting denied, he gains his chance when meeting an honest man named Dr. Abraham Erskine (Tucci) who's an idealist scientist who sees potential in Rogers for a new experiment. The serum can't be used on just anyone as it will transform the person into an unstoppable super soldier as well as amplify their temperament from bad to really bad, and good to extremely good. Thus when the ultra-patriot-to-be comes out a taller, bulkier one-man-army, not to mention a lady magnet, he has the perfect antithesis of a rival with Red Skull on the side of HYDRA who uses his powers for gain and domination.

Like "Green Lantern" this thoroughly concentrated on character development, including what it means to have these awesome strengths and how to direct and use them to their maximum potential. Though when it came time to get his hands dirty, the antagonist vs protagonist element seemed somewhat straightforward, glossed over and easy to the unchallenged Captain. The only moment the brain kicks in is when a scene is too vague rather than being too complex. From doing campaign pledges for war bonds and gimmicky shows that include American flag dressed woman dancing to hooting soldiers, Cap gets heckled off stage by real combatants and decides to put his abilities to the test to save his friend Bucky (Sebastian Stan) and fellow soldiers held prisoner. Soon enough with the help of Howard Stark (Dominic Cooper) with his uniform, he has a motley crew of fighters that go out on missions that somehow have a detrimental effect on the war effort, yet it's never fully explained how that's possible. It makes things extremely simple and that part of the story only seems there to do nothing but perpetuate fast flying, combustive action.

Red Skull, apart from his intensely commanding appearance and dress, wasn't as outlined and the performance came across at times like a run-of-the-mill, snide villain who ends up being somewhat predictable. Not to mention some of the delivery was scripted to a fault as some lines felt preplanned and a lost cause to the quick pacing. Chris Evans went for sincerity due to toning down his usual showmanship and humor from past films like "Fantastic Four" and instead lets others take on one-liners like the hilarious Tommy Lee Jones who plays the no nonsense, southern Colonel Chester Phillips. Evans performs the role as somewhat naive to the world at large from knowing exactly what he wants and everything else along the way being second, such as dames and his own well-being. Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) shows up as the physically attractive agent on the surface but underneath is confident and not to be underestimated. There's a budding love angle but fortunately the picture never slows down to entirely make it a distracting cliche that every blockbuster summer flick "must" have.

"Captain America: The First Avenger" never lets up from being relentlessly theatrical as a number of scenes are set up with the intention of going for a grand show and timed out unveiling rather than attempting to create a piece of naturalism or history lesson. Despite its exaggeration and garish ways, it indeed works as a mostly simple and entertaining experience with a little food for thought about Cap's little guy background and eventually plenty of action fodder to give it energy. The 3-D wasn't completely maximized to its full potential but it did have its moments of shining, such as a few particular scenes that for the first time actually made me flinch with his iconic shield coming right out of the screen! The film moves steadily along and doesn't feel its two hour time length partly due to frequent location changes. The effort put into the art direction and set pieces while melding CGI positively showed as they were generally constructed down to the finest detail. In terms of fire power in a war movie, this shuffles between guns that shoot bullets and fictitious ones with beams of energy, as well as flame throwers and tanks, and, of course, more fiery explosions than can be counted on fingers and toes in a packed theater.

Director: Joe Johnston (The Rocketeer, Jurassic Park III, The Wolfman)
Starring: Chris Evans, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Hayley Atwell, Stanley Tucci, Sebastian Stan, Dominic Cooper, Neal McDonough
Website: IMDB

Jury Duty (1995)

Starring: Pauly Shore, Tia Carrere, Stanley Tucci

Directed by John Fortenberry

“Jury Duty” is a movie that is loosely based upon "12 Angry Men," and centers around a loser who is selected for, you guessed it, jury duty, and holds up the deliberation in order to take advantage of the nice hotel where he is staying during the course of the trial.

Yeah...this movie sucks. One of the biggest differences between the 1957 classic (which can be seen on television in one scene and is used as a minor plot device) and this film is that the former is a drama while this is a comedy. The other big difference is that the former starred Henry Fonda, one of the best actors of all time, while this one stars Pauly Shore, who should not even have an acting career. Now all that being said... why was this made? Did they really expect people to pay money for this? Very little of this movie provided any humor, and the few times I did laugh, it was mostly due to the fact that the gags were so pathetically unfunny by nature that they actually became funny by default, if that makes any sense at all.

Now to be fair, I am being lenient in terms of my criticism, because as bad as it is, I did not feel like I was "harmed" by it. I would compare it to something like "Dude, Where's My Car?": it is not funny, but you are aware that you are seeing something stupid and are just watching it for the sake of wasting your time. That being said, at least "Dude" had a catchy title and had the sensibility to come up with its own weird story line as opposed to trashing the legacy of a movie of far superior quality.

Therefore, I do not recommend this film.