Transformers: Age of Extinction

Expectations:
To describe my relationship with Transformers as a guilty pleasure would be quite an understatement. The film critic side of my brain knows that there is very little about the film series that could be considered even remotely noteworthy or mentionable, but the other side of my brain, which really loves watching cars turn into robots, really enjoys many things about these brainless films. For example, I love the humor that Shia LaBeouf, Kevin Dunn, and Julie White brought to the first three films. Also, I like to watch cars TURN INTO ROBOTS!!! In fact, I even loved Revenge of the Fallen and Dark of the Moon, which were both hated by a majority of critics. So... Let's get to Age of Extinction... With Shia LaBeouf and crew removed from the storyline, I was quite leery of how the human side of things would pan out in this fourth franchise installment. However, regardless of the success of the newly installed Mark Wahlberg (who I am not a huge fan of), I clung to the fact that cars would be turning into robots. I mean, how can you screw that up???

Plot:
While I didn't expect Mark Wahlberg's Cade Yeager to live up to LaBeouf's Sam Witwicky, I had hoped that I wouldn't hate him quite so much. Unfortunately, the lack of humor really sucked a lot of the life out of a film bordering 3 hours in length. As expected, when the film focused on the autobots, I was quite entertained, but I just didn't care about Yeager's financial struggles or his unexplained desire to shelter his daughter. The only human-based storyline that I did enjoy was that of Stanley Tucci's Joshua Joyce, although this film was quite unworthy of Tucci's excellence. However, Joyce's fascination with the technology of the transformers did feel appropriate and actually brought up a few questionable social issues that the real world will soon be facing, when it comes to techonological advances. Overall, the awesomeness of Optimus Prime kept me entertained, but, unlike the past three films, there were many moments where I wondered how much longer the film was going to be dragged out. If only the film had been solely about the government, technology companies, and alien robots (yeah, just three big things), it probably would have been a lot better (and at least an hour shorter).

Characters:
As I've now said 50 times, the humans were disappointing, and the robots were awesome! While Tucci's storyline actually fit into the film quite well, it still wasn't perfect, and there is no doubt that everything would have been better without Marky Mark and his family coming along for the ride. In fact there were multiple occasions where they were unnecessarily brought into scenes where robots were fighting or plotting, which ended up being really awkward. Additionally, the only truly comedic human in the entire film was T.J. Miller's Lucas. While Miller always cracks me up, his absence from the majority of the film was quite a disappointment to me.

Negatives:
Humans

Positives:
Alien Robots

Conclusion:
As my movie-watching habits and expectations have matured over the past few years, it's not hard to believe that my desire for Transformers-esque films has greatly decreased. At the same time, I have become much more appreciative of action flicks that can get it right, such as The Avengers, X-Men: Days of Future Past, and Star Trek. Unfortunately, the Transformers franchise has not quite been able to keep up with my heightened expectations, and, as long as Mark Wahlberg is involved, I don't think that will change. Even so, I still love all things Transformers, and the film was not a complete bust. The cars still turned into robots, so... AWESOME! I'm hopeful that the franchise will improve with the inevitable fifth film, but, either way, I still have three awesome movies that I can watch over and over! I give Transformers: Age of Extinction 2.54 out of 5 stars.

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.

The Hunger Games

Expectations:
Heading in to the theater, I knew that this film was going to produce one of the most interesting reviews of 2012. The question was whether or not it would be because I loved the film or because I was forced to rain on everyone's parade. There was a lot of doubt in my mind heading in, mostly because I'm not a big fan of the obsession that is caused by a popular book series being turned into a popular movie series. The biggest problem I have is the fact that most of these films HAVE to be dilluted down, in order to appeal to mass audiences. It is difficult for me to judge these aspects. without having read the book, but there is only so much that you can portray with that coveted PG-13 rating. Kudos to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo for not caring. My main wish for The Hunger Games, however, was that it would not be Twilight...

Plot:
I will say this right off the bat... this storyline was ten thousand times more intense than I expected. Heading in, I didn't know too much about the storyline, but I had an idea, based on the trailer and the overwhelming gossip. After seeing the film, I was very impressed. It took me a minute to get into the movie, but, once I did, there was never a dull moment. However, there were a few issues. From a story perspective (which is not the fault of the movie makers), I thought the whole thing was a bit predictable. There were plenty of great moments, but never a true WOW! moment that takes the movie over the top. From a movie making perspective (which is not the fault of the author), the biggest issue was with the action scenes. The camera was literally four inches from the actors' faces, which made action scenes turn into giant blurs. The intensity of the idea of these teenagers killing each other is soooo massive and complex, but the intensity is lost when you can't tell what's going on.

Characters:
I think the characters were a bit of a low point for me. Certainly, Katniss was a great leading character, and Jennifer Lawrence did a fantastic job. The problem was that, beyond Katniss, there was absolutely no character depth. I'm sure that reading the book would fill a bit of that void, but that shouldn't matter. There are plenty of movies based on books that have phenomenal character depth, so it's just not an excuse. I couldn't take Stanley Tucci (as Caeser Flickerman) seriously, at all. Donald Sutherland was not at all intimidating as President Snow. Woody Harrelson proved, yet again, that he can't do serious. The biggest problem, however, wasn't an acting issue; it was a character issue. That issue shone bright with the characters of Peeta and Gale (played by Josh Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth). I never, ever felt like they had any character depth. In the Twilight films, I know to cheer for Edward, because he isn't a little girl like Jacob. With Peeta and Gale, I didn't even know which one to cheer for. Gale said like three words, and Peeta had no depth. He liked Katniss and didn't want to die. That's it!

Best Character: This one was easy. Rue, played by Amandla Stenberg, was absolutely the best and toughest character of them all, and she was only like 12. She is the only character that I really, really loved and well...

Worst Character: This one was also easy. Seneca Crane, played by Wes Bentley, was the worst character and was given the worst performance. I don't know how emotionless he was supposed to be, but he had zerooooo character.

Conclusion:
Was this movie the best thing since sliced bread? Absolutely not. However, my review may come off a bit harsh. The main reason that I pointed out all of these negative aspects was because nobody else seems to be doing so. I'm just a little sick of hearing how amazing it is, when there are obviously flaws in both the movie and the story itself. If this movie had gone with the more raw approach that we saw with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, it would have been so, so good. But, let's put that aside and give The Hunger Games the credit that it is due. Any film that can make $152 million in one, single weekend deserves to be praised. I am certainly glad that I could be a part of that statistic, and I honestly can't wait to see the next film. I give The Hunger Games 3.33 out of 5 stars, and may the odds be ever in your favor...