Review: The Hunger Games - Catching Fire

This sequel makes up for a lot of its predecessor's glaring faults, yet somehow continues to paint its theme in the same unbelievable and contrived fashion.

Having survived the Hunger Games, a gladiatorial arena fashioned by a tyrannical society called The Capitol, heroes Katniss and Peeta must deal with their limelight fame from those they despise, and the relationship they pretended to have to escape death. The Capitol's president however doesn't approve how every survivor can give the repressed people hope, and creates a new Hunger Games where only seasoned survivors compete to the death. 

I didn't like 2012's Hunger Games. I went into this sequel with trepidation, but I have to admit the first hour or so got me very interested! We have the Capitol actually flexing its muscles and giving our heroes and lower classes a hard time, they are actually competent villains for once. There are real consequences to the aftermath of the first Games, troopers raid towns, people are executed, even our heroine is shaken and brittle from the experience! The idea of Katniss and Peeta being thrown into a last-man-standing death match (for real this time) with seasoned veterans who hate them, all commanded by newcomer (and slimier than ever) Phillip Seymour Hoffman. I was pretty excited!

But then the Hunger Games event began... and everything fell apart. Our combatants are unique, but about two thirds of them die off screen, and the real problem of fighting to the last man is dropped immediately. The Capitol again have no teeth, no guts and their Hunger Games as a concept continues to be completely redundant.
I'm sorry, but I still don't understand. The Capitol are still incompetent villains at the end of the day, and it infuriates me! I like the idea that they are weak due to their overconfidence and complacency, but it has never been shown that the Hunger Games even works as a deterrent, it only seems to be a massive invitation for uprising and war. It makes no sense!  

There's also a twist at the end, I cannot say what it is, but it only compounds this complete inability by The Capitol, and actually undermines most of the threat that you initially felt earlier. I cannot comprehend watching this again... it would be even less convincing.

(it also still irritates me that most of the actual killing in the Hunger Games happens off screen, although it is true this film has a little more brutality)

This film does have a very good beginning, I like The Capitol's citizens, I like the heavy subtext of television control and celebrity worship that dominates the first hour. Jennifer Lawrence is still great as Katniss, the action is actually directed better here (less shaky-cam and rapid cuts) and for two hours and thirty, it didn't feel long.
But god does it still wound me with its lackluster execution and its unbelievably not-threatening tyrants, and it all fell apart at the end.

Additional Marshmallows: Oh, and the third installment, two films. I... I hate. All of the hate. These films are slow enough, giving one story FIVE hours will be the most boring experience ever!

Review: Hansel and Gretel

To be honest, there really isn't that much to say about it, except that I enjoyed it a lot more than I expected!

Following the events of the classic fairytale of Hansel and Gretel who survive their encounter with a witch inside a gingerbread house, we see the two siblings grown up, decked out in leather and with a host of weaponry, hunting and killing witches. A town has children kidnapped by witches and while the duo search for them, they learn about their past.

The film is first and foremost, indulgent; it does not attempt at taxing your brain or giving our heroes moralistic decisions. This is a simple equation: witch + magical shotgun = blood splatter patterns.
It is totally self aware and riotous. Don't go into this with any pretense of how unjustified the real witch hunts of history really were... this film is entirely fantasy. To think, Nicolas Cage's Season of the Witch tried to have that sort of subtly, but, as I reviewed, that tried and failed. This film embraces its lunacy with abandon.

Is it a good film? Not really, it is what it is: dumb and fun. A great way to waste a couple of hours one night. Are you really going to complain having Jeremy Renner and especially Gemma Arterton completely suited in leather, quipping while shooting witches with shotguns?

More seriously now though, I was actually really impressed with the film's practical effects! We have physical monsters, physical action and physical effects everywhere! This alone kept me watching. The witches are uniquely designed too, you can tell a lot of love went into the way the film looks, tie this with actors who appear engaged and enjoying themselves, you get a really bouncy and entertaining film.
Not to mention gory and surprisingly violent! This film doesn't pull its punches when it wants to show people getting killed, so the horror crowd will get their fill too.

Its like taking Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Tim Burton's Sleepy Hollow and excessive violence and popping them into a blender. Enjoyably stupid, I'd recommend it as a good time waster!

  
Additional Marshmallows: A friend of mine will be telling me: "I told you so", after I turned down seeing this in the cinema to instead see... A Good Day to Die Hard... I'm crying a little.
 

 

Spoiled Cocoa: Maleficent

So our first trailer of Disney's new Maleficent has arrived, and ever since I saw the first image of Angelina Jolie wearing the iconic headgear I've been keeping an eye on this quite keenly. Sleeping Beauty is my favourite Disney film (excluding Pixar it is the only Disney film that made my top 50 films list) Why? Mostly because of Maleficent herself, and one fantastic dragon!

How do I feel after seeing this new trailer? Well... reasonably optimistic.



Love that spin on the Disney castle, very unusual!

I suppose one's opinion is allowed to be swayed now. Before all we had was Angelina Jolie in costume (which is great) now we have.... child actors, CG and production value to scrutinise.

(to get this out the way: this is a good teaser trailer! It doesn't spoil anything, doesn't tell us the entire story, just gives us a glimpse. If only more trailers did this...)

I think what I enjoyed most about Sleeping Beauty was how persistent yet subtle Maleficent really was as a villain. She wasn't in your face, she wasn't mugging at the camera or spewing heaps of dialogue. She was almost elemental. A plotter and a schemer with terrible anger. Whether or not Maleficent the film captures this or not will make or break it for a lot of critics. I would hope a lot of the film will be very moody and visually driven (I do like the visuals of her stalking through the fantastical forests) we are dealing with a dark character here.

I've read that the film will give her backstory... this will have to be treated carefully! I don't want to have another case of Episode 2's Boba Fett! See if I sit down for this film and it opens with Maleficent as some rosy cheeked eight year old! 

From the trailer though... they are certainly making note of her shadowy presence at least. Although the similarly iconic thorn sequence looked a little... fake.
For some reason watching this made me wonder, will CG ever stop feeling obliged to make things look realistic? Because surely that's where these things fall down, trying to look real, the uncanny valley. Wouldn't it be cool if the thorns Maleficent created were stylised somehow, shadowy and pitch black, more animated than "real", suggesting her magic created them?

Such an awesome dragon!

Do I want a dragon in this film, you might ask me? You know what? I don't want a dragon in this film. I bet there will be, I bet there will be, but the problem there is it simply won't be as good as the original. 
(prove me wrong film, PROVE ME WRONG!.... please.)

This is, a little unnervingly, the directorial debut of Robert Stromberg, he has little to his name but what there is is in art and production. Matte Painting Supervisor for my favourite film Pan's Labyrinth? I will take that. But that doesn't add anything for directorial skills...

I really want this to be a dark, gothic fairytale story that doesn't ruin one of my favourite villains of all time. Evidently, there's a lot riding on this and I will be in the cinema with trepidation, but...

How cool was Jolie's Maleficent laugh at the end of the trailer!?
 
 

Review: Robot and Frank

A short, simple and heartfelt film that gives a subtle look at a very possible future.

When his father Frank shows signs of dementia, son Hunter decides to give him a robot aid to take care of him. While completely disinterested at first, Frank soon learns that the robot only wants to help him, with whatever he needs. So dutifully the robot learns and assists Frank in burglary; Frank's talent from his younger days.

Set "in the near future" Robot and Frank explores future possibilities I currently find very interesting. From the evolution of robotics and the moralities there in, to the slow digitization of everything around us.
Frank (played wonderfully by Frank Langella) is the embodiment of a bygone age (even our current generation) with his mistrust of the technological boom, this is evident with his conflict with the hipster youths who live in a digital age. Susan Sarandon plays a librarian whose library that Frank frequents is getting completely replaced by a digital archive.
While Frank's son is all about helping his father with new age methods, his daughter (Liv Tyler) is very liberal and free spirited; devoted to helping others as a human being. This device is a little obvious, and does make the other characters stand out as their obvious stereotypes, but it isn't unwelcome in such a short story.

The writing and story strike best between Frank and his obedient servant. Frank Langella plays the part well, going from grumpy old man to reinvigorated rascal at the drop of a hat while keeping it honest. The robot itself learns, and becomes surprisingly sly after learning from a character such as Frank, and while very subtle, the writing is excellent with the duo's dialogue.

There isn't much else to say, as I say it is a very short film, but it is one I would recommend to anyone curious. It is has a gentle pace with some (perhaps predictable) interesting plot developments, as well as being a showcase for a very potential future for us as human beings!

   
Susan Sarandon is appearing in a LOT of films I'm reviewing this year!

 

Review: Gravity (3D)

As the film is quick to remind us: Life in space is impossible, and never has this been more apparent than in the new film by Alfonso Cuaron (director of Children of Men).

During repair work on the Hubble space telescope, a massive debris field destroys most of the repair team's operation. Incredibly isolated and with very few options open to them, Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and Matt Kowalski (George Clooney) must find a way home before the debris field orbits back to them again.

What can one say initially about Gravity? It is certainly a unique film experience (and I'm all for those!) The first couple of minutes are complete dead silence as we drift above Earth, and that's right, we start in space, no preamble.
The first act is easily the most disorientating, both from the terrifyingly silent visuals of mass chaos around our heroes, to the simple idea of being so vulnerable and at such dizzying heights.
The visuals are breathtaking, from the vastness of Earth below to the intensity of the void beyond, even when chaos breaks out, the fragmentation of equipment and objects is incredible. Of course, it isn't just a visual treat, the film does one thing subtly and very well; it doesn't over-explain things. Our characters may be isolated and alone, but we get a wealth of character from the few things they talk about. There are no flashbacks! There are plenty of opportunity for them, but the film maintains its claustrophobic atmosphere and does not break from it. Clooney and Bullock both give good performances, especially from her, carrying a lot of the film as a rookie astronaut.
It really captures the danger that comes with such conditions, the camerawork lovingly pans wider and wider, showing how exposed people are to the empty vacuum. It is something of a testimony to human ingenuity, but also frailty.

It is a very short film, and in some respects it is a one-trick pony, but damn does it do the trick well! I'd recommend seeing this on the biggest screen possible (a small screen will lack the vastness of our characters' peril) IMAX would be stunning. The 3D was certainly a welcome addition too, one of the better implementations I've seen!

Gravity will impress everyone, and no, asides some initial disorientation, I didn't feel sick!

    
 I tried to not say "vast" or "vastness" too often... surprisingly difficult!

Review: Thor - The Dark World (2D)

A fantasy adventure film with plenty of energy and excitement, and keeping with its subtitle it has some surprisingly dark undertones and visuals! Lightning strikes twice today.

While Thor does battle across the Nine Realms to restore order, scientist Jane Foster discovers an anomaly on Earth that acts as a doorway to a long forgotten artifact. Upon finding this power the Dark Elves and their leader Malekith, who have lived since before light's creation, seek it out. Thor must protect Jane and all Nine Realms, but he going to need unlikely allies to do it...

You know what, I was one of the people mocking and hating on Thor originally (I didn't even see the first film in the cinema!) as a Marvel concept it seemed utterly redundant. Nowadays though I can't help but enjoy myself watching this increasingly interesting story unfold!

I imagine this is due to the sequel's total immersion into the Nine Realms (rather than strictly focusing on Earth) and the creativity this lends to design, characters and mythos becomes fascinating. It is very much a fantasy movie first, where as Iron Man and Captain America are strictly science fiction stories.
The humour is still here, wonderfully, since that was what kept the first film afloat. Thor is his powerful self with no human weakness, but they still spend time on the goofy humour, lightening an otherwise bleak storyline. Loki returns and is diabolical as ever; the film's heart lies with these two characters and how they are evolving since the events of Avengers Assemble. The film has some incredible moments later on, I wouldn't dare allude to anything here.
I don't know if its just me, but the film reminded me of Superman 2 in an uncanny way. It has a classical film vibe about it, no excessive plotlines or redundant twists, and there's plenty of people being tossed through buildings and mountains during the action sequences!

It is a very simple story (all of its complexity lies with Thor and Loki's relationship) our villain Malekith (Christopher Eccleston) really isn't done justice and acts more like a typical boogeyman; he lurks in the background and forces the plot along when need be. I never saw him as more than just an embodiment of evil. If he had been given more time, I might have rated this film higher.

I enjoyed Thor - The Dark World a great deal, probably more than the original! It has some plot conveniences and Thor never feels at risk (but those around him certainly do!) but take it for what it is, a big exciting and visually interesting fantasy film, and you'll see so much more lying underneath.

Additional Marshmallows: And, because most of it is set within the Nine Realms, you don't get the problem of "Why doesn't he call on the Avengers!?" like a certain Mr Stark...  


Hey, hey guys, you want to see my Thor review? Sure, I'll copy it here for you! (it is a short review!)


Thor (2011)

Kenneth Branagh, more known for his Shakespearian adaptations, uncharacteristically directs this rather uncharacteristic Marvel superhero blockbuster, to match the other three "avenger" superhero movies.

Thor, the Norse god of thunder is brash and big-headed, and his overconfidence has him banished from the realm of Asgard to live among mortal humans. While there his brother Loki, god of mischief, vows to surpass Thor's past glory.

I have a huge difficulty (as someone unfamiliar with comics) taking Marvel's Thor with credibility; to me they have merely taken an existing myth and made it their own. I have trouble putting him beside Iron Man and the Incredible Hulk! As such, having watched the film, I am still uncertain.
However, all of these films continue to surprise me with an insane level of charisma, you can't not like them. I laughed a decent number of times here. The mighty Thor falls to Earth, only to be immediately knocked unconscious by a small woman's taser! Plus seeing how well they've depicted the mythology here is nice to see.
 
It is extremely CGI heavy, but the actors all look like they are enjoying themselves - Kenneth Branagh himself openly stated he was a huge Thor comic book fan, and I think it shows.
It doesn't take itself seriously, and that is a blessing. It isn't terribly intelligent, and I might say its the weaker of all the "avengers" heroes so far, but it was certainly enjoyable!

 

 

Review: G.I. Joe - Retaliation (2D)

I was never a fan of GI Joe when I was growing up (Transformers were my thing) and I can hardly remember much of the first film, but what I can gather are some huge glaring inconsistencies in an otherwise big, dumb, cliched action flick.

The sequel to GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, shows the Joes being framed and left for dead by their own government when the President of the USA is replaced by a Cobra spy. In efforts to unmask the villain, The Rock teams up with John McClane and characters not seen in the first film, while fan favourite "Snake Eyes" does ninja stuff on the side. Cobra's plan, to free the imprisoned super villains Cobra Commander and Destro, who has a plan to... you guessed it... take over the world.

Wow, there's an interesting mixed sensation of desperation and damp squib about this movie. Okay, okay, its a big dumb action film and if that's all you want that's fine, but if there's one thing I hate its inconsistencies. Another thing I hate is ineffective villains, especially when they are supposedly running the show (see Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen) this is rife in G.I. Joe 2.
I had some high hopes at first, okay so the acting is below par jargon spouting, the sets are quarries and warehouses, but it had potential. Nice political undertones, some loss and tragedy on our heroes, a cool redesign on Cobra Commander (the only character I picked up on in my childhood) but it all descends into a rampant action sequence that is not particularly glorious or over the top like the first film, nor gripping as our heroes never seem to be at risk.

We have characters emerge who we've never met yet have to relate to. Dwayne Johnson shows up and takes over (much like he did in the Fast'n'Furious films, what's up with this guy?) and they toss Bruce Willis in for... well... being Bruce Willis. He does nothing to the film, apart from saying that he's old... AGAIN.
Villains become good guys, characters in the first film vanish from sight and memory (I'm looking at you, Baroness) a huge reset button was hit between films, with only a strenuous link holding them together.

I haven't even mentioned how every scene has glaring plot holes and stupid movie logic, ie: why would Cobra Commander have a giant "foil my evil plan" button on the master control for his entire operation? Why? Just in case he had a change of heart? There are dozens of problems.

Sure, the first film had those stupid tech armour suit things, and a ridiculous underwater battle, but at least I remember those (unfortunately I also remember Brendan Fraser...)

Ultimately, I feel there was a missed opportunity here. Which sounds silly as it is a film based off a toy line, but Dwayne Johnson fits this universe better than the Fast films, the visuals can be good, but it is so clustered and messy that it doesn't have any stand out moments. A lacklustre action sequel clutching at straws.

Additional Marshmallows: Not to mention delaying the film's release by a year so you could shoehorn a 3D version in...

Additional Additional Marshmallows: Did you forget that Joseph Gordon Levitt was in the first GI Joe film... as the man who becomes Cobra Commander?? I know I did (no he isn't in the sequel).