The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

Expectations:
Before beginning this review, I decided to look back at my review of the first Hunger Games film, which you can read here. This look back led me to a grand total of two conclusions... 1. With regard to teen book trilogies being turned into films, my frustration never ceases... 2. My writing really sucked in March of last year! I mean, the movie was mediocre enough. The least I could have done was deliver a memorable review for you guys... Sorry about that! Anywho, after watching the underwhelming Hunger Games, my expectations for its sequel were far from elevated. In fact, I expected things to turn out a lot worse, considering sequels tend to lean in that inferior direction. Plus, why would I just want to watch people fight under the same circumstances of the first film? I haven't read the books, but my bet is that Suzanne Collins was really lacking in originality, when it came time for her to create Catching Fire and Mockingjay. Seriously, Mockingjay is not even an original title! It's a theme throughout! Regardless, I felt it was my duty to check out what I figured to be a duplication of its predecessor...

Plot:
Unfortunately, Catching Fire's storyline turned out to be The Hangover Part II of YA novels, which is not the fault of the filmmakers. Luckily for Lionsgate, teenagers don't really care about originality, as long as you convince enough people to like it (gotta keep it cool!). I must say that it was quite evident that Catching Fire was an after-thought of Suzanne Collins'. Not only were there an excessive number of new characters, but the lack of originality was just blatant. Like the first film, the love triangle felt forced, as Josh Hutcherson's Peeta stole the show, as far as romanticism is concerned. At this point, I wonder why Gale (played by Liam Hemsworth) was even necessary. Maybe the story would have been more interesting if Katniss (played by Jennifer Lawrence) just didn't like Peeta, regardless of the other men in her life. It would certainly cut down on the unnecessary screen time on Gale's part. I guess not as many ravenous girls would be interested if they only had one guy to obsess over. Also, Gale shouldn't call her "Catnip"! The name Katniss has never been had by anyone, so why do you need to give a nickname to someone with a unique name... That's just a personal rant of mine!

Characters:
I must say that the acting and the characters were much better in Catching Fire than in the first film. Of course, we all know that Jennifer Lawrence can act, so that's not something worth discussing, but the other performances, discussed below, made the long, drawn out introduction to the actual games a bit more bearable than in the first film.

Negatives:
Thank goodness that Seneca Crane (played by Wes Bentley) was absent from this film. He was one of the worst characters of all 2012 films, and his absence made the film a lot better. The only Catching Fire character that I just could not stand was Lenny Kravitz's Cinna, who is just so, so awkward! Is it just me or does he not come off as a giant perv, who wants him some catnip (if you know what I'm talking about)? Maybe if I had read the books, I would have more of a connection to him, but, as far as the film is concerned, I just think he is a bit of freak.

Positives:
When watching the first film, I found Stanley Tucci's Caesar Flickerman to be WAAAAY over the top. However, in the last 18 months, I must have become more comfortable with his goofily excited character or something, because I thought he was absolutely brilliant. I honestly think that Tucci is one of the greatest actors alive, and he certainly proved that in Catching Fire. Every moment that he was on screen was just amazing, and, when he wasn't, that mediocrity of the main characters shone oh so bright. Also, I really enjoyed the newfound depth of Elizabeth Banks' Effie, who was much more tolerable than in the first film, and the much more likable gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee, played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman.

Conclusion:
In comparison to the first Huger Games film, Catching Fire reigned supreme, in my opinion. It did so not because of its originality or excitement but because of its better performances and more enjoyable minor characters. While the concept of centering the entire film around the games themselves AGAIN may have been lacking in originality, it was still quite dramatic and kept my interest. I assume that Mockingjay will feature a lot more originality, although I'm sure the fact that it has been turned into two films will diminish its drama and excitement. Regardless of what the future may hold for The Hunger Games, I must say that I am intrigued, and I can't wait to see what happened next. Unfortunately, I don't see much Stanley Tucci in my Hunger Games radar, so that could mean it's all downhill from here. We'll see! I give The Hunger Games: Catching Fire 3.45 out of 5 stars.

Thor: The Dark World

 

Expectations:
As "Phase 2" of Disney's never-ending Marvel overload continues, expectations for stand-alone, superhero movies have plummeted, because we know how great it is when all these guys get together. People used to get genuinely ecstatic about each and every superhero film, but, now, people are just waiting around for the next Avengers film. Personally, I have even more excitement for the new X-Men film, but most of my excitement can be attributed to the great mass of superheroes and great actors that will be featured in the film. However, for the moment, let's pretend that The Avengers never happened. What are my expectations for the Thor sequel, now?... Well... they are even lower! I'm sorry, but I didn't care for the first Thor film, and he was easily my least favorite Avenger. So, with that being said, my only motivation to see Thor: The Dark World was to avoid missing something crucial in the Marvel universe. Also, Loki is kinda the man...

Plot:
My least favorite part of this sequel was the insignificance of the bad guys, Malekith and Algrim. Of course, their existence meant the end of the earth, but their motivation and power came off as a bit ambiguous, in my opinion. Basically, it was as if they needed someone to take the evil attention away from Loki, but, in the end, it just fell flat. Aside from that, the plot wasn't too bad. However, two weeks after watching the film, it is kind of hard to remember many details. So, maybe it wasn't so great either. I do remember that I was impressed with the way that Loki's return to Asgard was dealt with, and the ending was much less abrupt, compared to the first Thor film. Additionally, I enjoyed the story surrounding Thor and Jane Foster, played by Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman, a lot more than in the first film. It wasn't quite as forced.

Characters:
Loki is easily Thor's saving grace, and there was no doubt that Tom Hiddleston carried The Dark World farther than any other character. Unfortunately for us, Loki is expected to be absent from the second Avengers, which will make it interesting to see how the development of a bad guy may engulf the second Captain America film, due out in April. Aside from Loki, mediocrity was the name of the Thor character game. Below are a few exceptions...

Negatives:
As I said before, the bad guys, played by Christopher Eccleston and Mr. Echo (I'm not going to try to type out his real name), were pretty much pointless, and I highly doubt that anyone truly enjoyed their presence in the film. Also, Erik Selvig, played by Stellan Skarsgard, continued to become less and less important in the grand scheme of the Thor storyline. To me, this reduction of importance is quite disappointing, as he was one of the few characters that I enjoyed in the first film. My final negative is the big man himself, Thor!, who is the stupidest and most awkward of all the Avengers, yet he manages to be the only thing that ties every super's story together. Regardless, I can't stand him! Seriously, if you took Chris Hemsworth and put him in Troy or Clash of the Titans, you would realize just how ridiculous this character turned out to be.

Positives:
Loki is the man! This film would have been more appropriately titled Loki: The Cooler Brother. I mean, is there any way that we can get Loki in The Avengers 2? I'll let you keep Thor, Joss! Just give me a little Loki. I predict a bright future for Tom Hiddleston, and I can't wait to see what's in store for him. As was the case with the first Thor film, I really enjoyed the character of Heimdall, played by Idris Elba. His wisdom and loyalty is a great accent to the various rebellious characters throughout Asgard, and I really wish he would find his way into an Avengers movie.

Conclusion:
In comparison to its preceding Phase 2 project, Iron Man 3, I would put Thor: The Dark World on exactly the same level. The film was better than Thor's last stand-alone film, just like Iron Man 3 was better than Iron Man 2, featured a lot of hearty laughing moment, just like Iron Man 3, and contributed very little to the overall, Avengers-based storyline (with what we know at this point), just like Iron Man 3. I don't know how everyone else feels, but, after seeing Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World, I am afraid that these Marvel films are going to become a bit too generic. Don't get me wrong... I enjoyed the story, some of the acting, and, of course, I will go back to see Thor 3. However, as the movie wrapped up, I had that same underwhelming feeling that came after Iron Man 3. It was that same feeling you get after you watch any plot-twisting, action-filled, depth-lacking movie on the big screen. You know what I'm talking about! At this point, I just hope that The Avengers: Age of Ultron has something unique and exciting in store for Marvel fans. If not, Phase 2 may turn out to be the highest grossing and least exciting of the infinite future Marvel phases. I give Thor: The Dark World 3.12 out of 5 stars.

12 Years a Slave

 

 

Expectations:

If you've read any sort of pre-Oscar news, over the past few months, you would have certainly been exposed to the praise of 12 Years a Slave. Truthfully, that's the only exposure that I really had to the film. I can't even remember watching a trailer, though I probably did at some point. Regardless, my expectations were surely lacking, aside from my assumption that this would be an "Oscar favorite" type film. The problem with those Oscar favorites is the fact that they are extremely hit or miss with my viewing pleasures. For instance, in 2011 (we will leave the amazingness of 2012 out of this), there were Oscar-nominated films that I loved, like The Help, Moneyball, Midnight in Paris, and Extremely Loud and incredibly Close, but there were also some that I didn't love, like Hugo and The Descendants. Plus, there were two that I could not stand or understand (cough... The Artist, cough cough... The Tree of Life). With that being said, I was afraid that 12 Years a Slave might be one of those historic films that drives The Academy crazy, offers up a few good performances, and leaves me less than satisfied. However, I couldn't miss out on the opportunity to catch a film like this, coming to Hattiesburg, Mississippi.

 

Plot:

The only big negative in the storyline of 12 Years a Slave is the fact that this story is unfortunately one of truth. There are multiple dramatically honest moments that truly make you feel for the individuals who were forced to endure such horrific circumstances. Here in the South, the faults of slavery continue to bring out emotions on both sides of the spectrum. As for me, it's an issue that I believe is best left in the past, but I won't argue with a great tale, such as 12 Years a Slave, being brought out, in an effort to make a new generation of moviegoers and, most importantly, Americans aware of what evil once engulfed our nation. Kudos to the late Solomon Northup for publicizing his story and giving folks like me the opportunity to realize the severity of slavery in the South. There is a moment in the film where Northup, played beautifully by Chiwetel Ejiofor, is hung from a tree, remaining low enough to hold himself up by the tips of his toes. Never, in all of my movie watching, have I ever felt more engaged in a scene, and I honestly began to want for breath. There were many long, artistic scenes designed in the same manner, each of which were amazingly engaging. The only true criticism I have of the way the film developed was how it dealt with the "12 Years" aspect. To me, the events of the film felt more like "12 Months," and, as the end of the film approach, I kept waiting for a "10 years latter" or something similar. Then, the movie was wrapping up, and I had to rethink the time frame in which I had imagined the previous events of the film. Not to take away from the great story, but it is something that you can be more aware of, if you do go watch the film.

 

Characters:

It may be early in the Oscar season, but I would bet a good sum of money that 12 Years a Slave will be favored to win best ensemble at the SAG Awards, in January. If I got to choose who won, you could bet everything you had on their victory. It's quite early to make such a bold prediction, but I was so, so impressed with these amazing performances.

 

Negatives:

The only character that I didn't care for, in what turned out to be an extremely but necessarily large cast, was Alfre Woodard's Mistress Shaw, whose role I felt was too small. She offered a lot of wisdom, in her short time on screen, which I would have loved to see more of. I don't know how much of this was due to the amount of time she was discussed in Northup's book or how much was due to the fact that there were so many great characters and so little time in which to enjoy their presence. Regardless, I wish she would have been a bit more prevalent.

 

Positives:

Where do I begin?... There were so many great performances in this film that there is no way I can touch on them all, so you will have to watch for yourself. Chiwetel Ejiofor was brilliant in the lead role, and he will surely merit a best actor nom for his performance. Paul Dano's Tibeats, a full-fledged slave-hater, was probably the most entertaining character in the film. Dano is a fantastic actor, and I thought he did such a great job in this role. Benedict Cumberbatch and Sarah Paulson also gave fantastic performances. However, there is absolutely no performance that could possibly measure up to that of Michael Fassbender! I was utterly blown away by Fassbender, who is quickly becoming one of the greatest actors in Hollywood, and, honestly, his performance was probably the best I have seen since I started this blog. Kudos to Fassbender and anyone involved in the casting of this film. It was absolutely brilliant.

 

Conclusion:

Much of my praise is likely brought on by the fact that I had no clue what to expect when I headed in to watch 12 Years a Slave. Regardless, I'm so, so, so glad that I decided to watch this film, particularly in the theater, where everything just tends to come to life a bit more. 12 Years a Slave is one of those movies that tugs at your emotional heart-strings, and we can all use a little emotion in each of our movie-watching lives. Kudos to director Steve McQueen and the entire cast of 12 Years a Slave for allowing us to share a unique story about a man who was not even meant to be a victim of the injustice that was occurring in the days of slavery. I could continue praising this film, but, instead, I want to challenge all of you guys to go out and watch this movie and see what it has to offer. I give 12 Years a Slave 3.78 out of 5 stars.

Last Vegas

Expectations:
The obvious selling point for Last Vegas is the star-studded, veteran (nicely put) lineup that was intended to hook older viewers. If you sit a 40-70 year old down and ask them whether they have a certain affection for one of the four Last Vegas stars (Michael Douglas, Robert DeNiro, Morgan Freeman, or Kevin Kline), they are almost certain to enjoy at least one of these great actors' storied careers. Even at 22, I'm a huge fan of both Kline and Freeman, and, of course, I loved Douglas in Wall Street. However, at 22, I really thought the humor of Last Vegas might be a bit too innocent and old fashioned to successfully entertain someone like me, who is used to the R-rated comedy world of The Hangover and Seth Rogen. Although it was sold as The Hangover for old people, I didn't really think it would be able to deliver those Hangover laughs. Nevertheless, in an attempt to appease my better half, I decided to give Last Vegas a chance and skip out on Ender's Game. Maybe Ender won't blow me up with his cool powers that I don't really understand (on account of I didn't get to watch the movie).

Plot:
Well, I was right about one thing... plot-wise, Last Vegas was far from The Hangover for old people. Actually, the only similarity it had to The Hangover was its location, and the fact that four men were involved. Honestly, it felt more like Grown Ups, featuring even OLDER stars! The whole concept that was embraced by Grown Ups (not Grown Ups 2) of a group of friends coming together and not really being in the same spot they were when they were last together was the exact same plot of Last Vegas. Luckily for Last Vegas, the jokes were absolutely hilarious! Now, I do want to give this disclaimer: I was in a great mood last weekend, so I was more apt to be laughing than many might be. Nevertheless, I thought this movie was hilarious, and I thought the jokes were perfectly balanced between the crudeness that younger audiences enjoy and the goofy, old people humor that goofy, old people enjoy. The only super-noticeable flaw was the way in which the old geezers obtained their gigantic suite, at their hotel. It was way out there, and, obviously, they couldn't come up with a better way to get them to their "party room."

Characters:
The selection of Douglas, DeNiro, Freeman, and Kline for these roles was absolutely spot-on. I was very pleased with the way that their varying degrees of humor mixed with one another. From the unfunny Douglas to the hilariously silly Kline, there was rarely a moment where I felt anyone was taken out of their respective element.

Negatives:
The only character that I did not care for was Lonnie, played by Romany Malco, whose jokes just failed to resonate with me. He really wasn't necessary and eventually became a lame excuse to have 50 Cent appear in the film.

Positives:
As the funnier of the four, I would have to say that Kevin Kline and Morgan Freeman shone a bit more than their Last Vegas costars. Although Kline was noticeably younger (10 years more so than Freeman), his hilarity overcame this oddity. I don't think I've ever seen Kline in a role that I did not enjoy. He may not be the biggest name in the game, but he always brings it home, as he continues to be underrated. Kudos to all of these guys for bringing on the laughs, and kudos to the filmmakers for getting them all together.

Conclusion:
Gravity, Captain Phillips, and, now, Last Vegas--how many unexpected surprises can one guy take? Regardless, I'm just glad to have the opportunity to watch these great films. I know that Last Vegas is in a completely different universe, compared to the others, but I appreciate a good comedy just as well as a good drama. In fact, I dare say that it is harder to make a good comedy in this era of films, considering that the comedy hits have recently been limited to Melissa McCarthy and animation, on top of the fact that cool, 3D graphics don't lend their hand to many grown up comedies. Anyway, considering how low my expectations were, Last Vegas may be the most surprisingly good film of 2013. Hopefully, when I approach the age of 100, my friends and I will also be kicking it in Vegas. If we can't make it that far, we can always just watch this movie. I give Last Vegas 3.34 out of 5 stars.

Captain Phillips

 

I know this review is quite delayed, but, unfortunately, I have this thing called school that takes up a lot of my time. Over the past few weeks, this thing has been absolutely insane, so please forgive me!

Expectations:
Each and every trailer that I saw for Captain Phillips resulted in absolute boredom! I just didn't think the film would entertain me much at all, but, like its predecessor, Gravity, the positive reviews for Captain Phillips were rolling in, causing me to rethink my expectations. It's been a good while since Tom Hanks has had a successful, non-Toy Story film, and it is good to see folks appreciating him again. Sure, he may have made some poor choices in taking roles in Cloud Atlas and Larry Crowne, but the man can act. His amazing career has garnered such respect as mine, and, heading in to watch Captain Phillips, I was hopeful that his performances in both this film and the upcoming Saving Mr. Banks would get him back on track...

Plot:
Considering that I expected very little, plot-wise, Captain Phillips was much better than expected. However, it did take a little too long for the drama to get going. In an attempt to create an emotional connection to the character, the film opened with Hanks' Phillips talking with his wife, as she drives him to the airport. To me, the introductory scene did very little to establish said connection but, instead, added unnecessary length to the film. As Hanks' dramatic performance progressed, he was able to create an emotional connection that no "talk with the wife" could possibly create. As the film moved onto the water, there were still some moments that I found unnecessary. Fortunately, I was on the edge of my seat throughout the film, which made up for the length.

Characters:
Although I did expect a great performance from Tom Hanks, I never thought I would be so blown away by his relationship with his pirate kidnappers, particularly their leader, played by Barkhad Abdi. I expected the pirates to be portrayed as these evildoers, who would keep Captain Phillips in captivity. Instead, the root of their piracy was their attempt to do their job, as piracy was truly their only option. This innocence led to the true heart of the film, as Hanks' Phillips begins to connect with the young pirates, leading to the climactic ending that is sure to have an emotional effect on anyone who watches the film. Was Hanks' performance good?... Absolutely. But, in my opinion, the relationship between Phillips and the pirates was the key to the drama in this film.

Conclusion:
There is very little, in this world, that I hate more than being wrong. Unfortunately, my expectations are on this horrible streak of failing me, from Don Jon to Gravity to, now, Captain Phillips. not only was Hanks performance great, but I also loved the performances of each of the pirates, as well as the great connection that developed between the pirates and Phillips. The plot was not fantastic, but it is a true story, so I don't know how you really fix that. Everything was drug out a bit, which may have taken away from the potential dramatic effect of the film. Thankfully, however, the drama was so, so real, and it was easy to put yourself in the shoes of Captain Phillips. For me, it would have undoubtedly led to my being seasick, but I probably would have been a bit worried about the pirates too. I give Captain Phillips 3.56 out of 5 stars.