Monday, November 25, 2013

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I was pretty "meh" about The Hunger Games last year. I hadn't read the books, I wasn't in love with Jennifer Lawrence yet (that would come with Silver Linings Playbook), and I thought it was pretty stupid that a character who earned his living making bread was named after bread. Couple that with a raging hangover on the first viewing, and I came out with heaping portions of "don't give a shit about this movie." These games, though. These games are straight starving, ya'll.

Too much sexy for one wet suit.

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is 146 minutes long, and 142 of those minutes are awesome. Set in the year following the games (SPOILERS) Catniss and Peeta won, Catching Fire focuses less on the actual Hunger Games (focal point of the original) and more on how junky a place the world of the story is for anyone who doesn't live in the Capitol district. It is way more baller to be the oppressor than the oppressed, guys.

Even at the breakneck pace Catching Fire moves, it still feels like a fuller, richer text than the original flick. The funny stuff is funnier, the sad stuff is sadder, and the gaming arena (once you finally get there) is way more badass. But what really makes this movie so good is the way it portrays a world on the edge of revolution without hammering that point in your face. The tension, save for a few scenes, rises quietly through the movie, like white noise on which the volume is slowly being turned up. 

That tension couples with intellectual weight, too. Any film that can play so deftly with the idea of it's main character as symbol (the government wants Catniss to be a symbol of their benevolence; the oppressed peoples of the earth want her as a talisman of revolution; her struggle between going with her heart/gut versus pragmatism is itself a reflection of a breaking world) makes the snooty 19 year-old film major in me get all tingly. A movie that can do so while spooling out a legitimately romantic action thriller is a rare breed. Catching Fire is just such an animal. 

The only flaw is the abruptness with which the movie ends, and some weird CGI that happens to lead off Catching Fire's closing credits (it's so distractingly silly that it bears mentioning even though it's not technically part of the movie). I get that this is part of 2 of 4, but man, denouement much? The movie essentially throws it's audience off a cliff and cuts to black, and I crave satisfaction, dammit. 

Really, though, see this movie. It's so good, and it's got a little something for everyone that likes movies and/or fun. The odds are ever in Catching Fire's favor for bossness.

Directed By: Francis Lawrence (who has seriously raised his game since direction mid-2000s shitfests like I Am Legend)

Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, super evil Donald Sutherland

You Should see it if: You like movies. Or have eyes. 

Monday, November 18, 2013

Thor: The Dark World

Man, I've really gotta break this pattern of reviewing movies a week after they're released. I blame the doldrums between horror season and the holiday Oscar/Baby Blockbuster push; it's hard to get fired up to go to the movies when you're staring down the likes of Last Vegas and Free Birds (tag line: Hang onto your Nuggets!). I crave man-sized action flicks AT ALL TIMES, and the winter's lean on that front. Fortunately, Marvel Studios stepped up this month to deliver some explosions/space combat, of the most handsome variety.

Your personal God of Thunder, ladies. 

None of the post Iron Man Marvel movies have been bad. Some have been excellent. Others have been serviceable to OK fluff. Thor: The Dark World  is definitely in the latter category. Watching it is like eating a reasonably sized bag of Doritos: it's fun (without crossing into mind blowing) as long as you don't think too hard about it. 

If all you're paying attention to is the cheesy, crunchy goodness, then you'll enjoy a few better than average battle sequences (Heimdall stabs a spaceship to *death*!), looking at all the pretty people (which Thor movies are chock full of), and more than a couple of decent jokes, because Loki is fucking sassy, you guys. It'll be a fine time.

If you're inclined to dig a little deeper, you might notice the movie's borderline total irrelevance in the Marvel Universe's overall plot progression, which is firmly at the center of The Avengers and the Captain America movies, or the writing, which is staggeringly lazy in a few spots. I accept that some convenience is required to make a movie work. I do not accept that if you transport yourself to a (supposedly random) point on an alien planet, and that planet has one spot of dimensional convergence with Earth, that will you just happen to stumble into the exact cave said spot exists in. You'll understand this complaint if you see the movie.

In the end, though, the dumb doesn't really detract from Thor: The Dark World. It's still pretty and a ton of fun. You just can't expect too much from it. It has a job to do, and it does it well, but in terms of cinematic weight, it's near the bottom of the Marvel cannon, which still makes it a lot better than any new Superman movie.


Starring: Chris Hemsworth, Nathalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston, Idris Elba, Hannible Lecter

You Should see it if: $5-$10 is not a big deal to you and you wanna see Thor wreck some face. Or think he's sexy.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Ender's Game: Kids in Space

I am not a member of the Ender's Game  cult. I remember reading it, and liking it OK, but it didn't stick with me the way a Dune or a Snowcrash did (both of which you should read, right now. Especially Dune. DO IT). The bummer elements of the novel didn't jive with how rad twelve-year-old James thought space combat was. Consider the aliens' feelings? Fuck that noise.

Major.

For those of you unfamiliar with the novel, Ender's Game is about a bunch of highly talented kids recruited to command earth's military in the final stages of an alien war because, very simply, they're better at commanding than grownups. There's more nuance than that which you can learn all about by reading the book if you're so inclined. Just remember- kids. aliens. space battles.

Because I was pretty "meh" about the novel, it was with an overwhelming sense of "meh" that I approached Alamo Village last night, and it lingered. Through the whole movie. Through all of Ender's intense training. All the little kid fist fights. All of Harrison Ford's scowls and Ben Kingsley's face tats. I didn't have a bad time; it's always nice to drink a frosty cold diet coke in the dark. I just didn't have a good time, either.

The biggest problem with Ender's Game cinema version is the pacing. I may not have loved the book, but I do respect it. It asks some pretty heavy questions about the morals of war, understanding your enemy's position, and exploiting the few for the good of the many, especially for a YA novel. The psychological strain Ender and his cohorts endure is brutal, and you feel as much intensely in the book. That gets lost in the movie, which replaces the novel's cerebral weirdness with battle training montages. What that distills to is an OK science fiction movie. Not a great one. Probably not one you should spend money on. Just an OK one. 

I fully acknowledge that I've just written a "The Book is Better than the Movie" review, which you're welcome to call me out on. Just know I already hate myself a little for it. 

...this will probably be the only time I ever complain about battle montages.

Directed By: Gavin Hood (otherwise known as the man who managed to steal this gay bashing asshole's crown for directing the worst X-Men movie! Impressive work, you hack.)

Starring: Asa Butterfield, Harrison Ford, Ben Kingsley, Viola Davisthe bad-ass girl from True Grit, and Little Miss Sunshine

You Should see it if: You're bored and/or you're a fan of the books. If they make a movie out of a book you love, even a bad one, you should see it, just to feel righteous about how much better you could have made the movie. LOOKING AT YOU, DREAMCATCHER.