The Hunger Games (2012)

2/3

I was initially drawn to this book because the plot takes place in the dark post-crisis society that Suzanne Collins predicts for the future of North America. I guess that sounds weird, but it's because I've always enjoyed books that tell of brave individuals fighting a dystopian totalitarian government (1984, The Giver, Anthem, It Coulnd't Happen Here etc etc). The Hunger Games held up as a book in this genre, so I had to see the movie. I was ultimately satisfied with the movie, but not as extraordinarily thrilled as I had hoped I'd be.

First off, it was always going to be a tough adaptation to the screenplay, considering that the novel is written in first-person present tense, from the perspective of our young female protagonist. You try putting a story's worth of internal thoughts and calculations into visual/action movie-form and tell me how easy it is. Then, add to this the difficulty of staying as true to the story as possible, like in the Harry Potter adaptations, to keep all the young fans of the book happy and eager to watch the next two movies. I guess that's why they brought in Collins as co-screenwriter. But one of the consequences of this is that the script wasn't as creative as it could have been, and it got a little bit dull visually at a couple places and resulted in a long film too, at 2 hours 22 minutes.

Also, the director, Gary Ross, was perhaps not the most obvious choice for this adaptation. His career has been as a rather ecclectic writer, doing Big, Dave, Pleasantville and Seabiscuit, directing the latter two. This resulted in a unique vibe throughout the movie, something quite different from the all-out Hollywood blockbuster feel of the later Harry Potter movies. The camera work was unique with lots of closeups and hand-held effects, plus there was an odd selection of instrumental, classical, music. Both of which, by the way, were a bit distracting at times. Also, it felt like Ross was trying to keep a low budget on effects because a couple scenes' CGI felt more like a high school art project than a professional job, namely the futuristic capitol city and the all-important flame costumes.

Ross also made certain casting decisions that weren't necessarily convincing. If his objective was to stick close to the novel, I think he strayed off course with the choice of Josh Hutcherson as lead male. The book painted the character as somebody much less assuming and arrogant, someone naturally more introverted and good-natured. Woody Harrelson's character in the book was both a bumbling drunk and a caring role model, but his portrayal only lived up to the former. And, finally, our protagonist Katniss Everdeen was played by Jennifer Lawrence, an inexperienced actress who is too much like a supermodel in real life (for proof, see her on the Red Carpet here) to play this role. In fact, she overdid her stoicism and reminded me of a young Juliette Lewis, the actress who played the middle-aged, knock-you-in-the-gut, mascara-smeared, roller derby hotshot, "Iron Maven" from Whip It.

But, bringing it all back in, I did like the movie overall. The brutality of teenagers killing each other in cold blood was successfully kept PG-13, other than casting choices it lived up to the book, and made me ready for the sequel.

Trainspotting (1996)

2/3

Trainspotting sort of reminded me of a Scottish version of the movie SLC Punk: a youth is giving commentary about his lifestyle, his circle of friends, his town and in so doing exposes the local hip culture and drug problems. So that means lots of vulgarity and crudeness in general, naturally. Of course, this is a Scottish production, so you can imagine the foul language. Also, this movie, I felt, got darker than SLC Punk and had some kinda graphic consequences of heroin use (the dead baby, depression and desolation, AIDS, the awful sickness that comes with heroin withdrawal etc).

In the end, the young characters from both movies grow up, move on and get clean, but at quite an enormous cost. In the end, everybody loses here. Parts were funny and ridiculously out there, but its anti-drug message was pretty clear. So kids, don't do drugs! I still don’t quite have the title figured out, maybe it's some Scottish slang that I just don't understand.

We Bought a Zoo (2011)

2/3

Cameron Crowe is a favorite writer/director of mine and his Almost Famous is one of my top favorite movies. I also like Matt Damon, Scarlett Johansson and Thomas Haydn Church. Plus, the title itself is intriguing, then I find out it's based on a true story. So, there was no question. I had to watch this movie. And it was okay, it did the trick, but wasn't phenomenal.

It was drenched in emotion and love. Which is why I’m sure Cameron Crowe brought in Aline Brosh McKenna as his co-writer, who did Devil Wears Prada and 27 Dresses, to nail all the nuances of those emotions. The film also focused on family and family dysfunction all around: The mother is dead, the father-son relationship was pretty miserable and they're going bankrupt. I guess I’m glad that I never had to deal with that as a child.

Nonetheless, it was a cool story and told about being adventurous and courageous and saying “why not?” In the end, I wish we had had more of Thomas Haydn Church's sarcastic comic relief and less mopey scenes, actually.

PS- great soundtrack.

The Avengers (2012)

2/3

I haven't always been too impressed with Marvel's movies. I think often that they can be sort of cheap entertainment in a massive, over-the-top Hollywood kind of way. Captain America, The Hulk, Thor, not totally my favorites. It always seems like it has to be a toss up between huge special effects sequences and quality writing. But, I have to say that I love the idea of The Avengers, one movie to connect them all and bring them all together (also an ingenious marketing strategy!). So, there was no way I was going to miss this Blockbuster with a $220 million budget.

I found it a little long and certainly full of its Blockbuster-self, but it was at the minimum entertaining, just what I had hoped for. The crowd also really got into it, which is fun, and just went wild at the comic inserts. Actually, I'm thankful for Robert Downey Jr because his arrogance and wit are quite amusing to watch and probably saved the movie for me. I also enjoy Samuel L Jackson, naturally, as well as the subtle softness contrast of Mark Ruffalo’s genius scientist side of the Hulk. Scarlett Johanssen’s outfit was enjoyable too. The rest, the plot-line etc, was as I expected.

Dark Shadows (2012)

2/3

It's a 2/3 for sure, meaning that I liked it, but with some reservations. First of all, it wasn’t as funny as the trailers promised. Actually, the writing was not all that compelling and I kinda got bored by it; it seems like the writer tried to put an entire season's worth of 1960's story into one two-hour script and it felt crammed or disjointed or something. Also, Johnny Depp’s character was a little 'off' here, almost as if he was fighting back the urge of acting like Captain Jack too much. I think his role here came out a little dull or too serious.

Overall, the movie felt kind of old-fashioned and outdated as a script, like Tim Burton wanted to do a throw-back movie, with the small Hollywood set, Danny Elfman music and quiet quips, a la Beetlejuice. That's not totally a bad thing, I guess. And, I will concede that there were funny parts and, sure, the 70s reenactment was fun. And, as always, Eva Green, my favorite Bond girl thus far, was a bit mysterious and hot.

The Five-Year Engagement (2012)

2/3

Yeah, this was a funny romantic comedy, I admit it. I really like Jason Segel and this reminded me a lot of his other movie, Forgetting Sarah Marshall. It was kind of encouraging from a dude’s perspective, like in Sarah Marshall, that you just have to pull things together and do something cool, follow your dreams, and then that gives you motivation and clarity to get the girl.


Most romantic comedies these days, as we all know, follow a very formulaic plot-line. They have to, to sell tickets. It's just the details that change amongst these films. This one was the same in that regard, but I really appreciated the funny twists they put on those stock plot points like when 1) the two sisters speak about their relationship stuff but doing it in Sesame Street voices or 2) when the girlfriend (Emily Blunt) and her boss are breaking up but they do it in the pyschology department's experiment room behind a see-through mirror and their two colleagues are listening in, shocked by the drama unfolding before their eyes or 3) when the sister (Alison Brie), a little tipsy, tries not to cry during her speech at the engagement party and instead speaks in a scary deep voice. There were also a lot of funny actors here (Brian Posehn, the big bearded guy who used to work with Zach Galifianakis and Mindy Kaling, the girl from The Office, just to name a couple).


In other notes, Segel also addresses his Jewish ancestry in a funny passing way, like in Sarah Marshall and in some of his other stuff. The filming makes you want to move to the Bay area (and not to Michigan). I was happy that Segel didn’t show his penis in this film, although he seems to have no qualms about showing embarrassing sex dysfunctions.

THX 1138 (1971)

2/3

THX 1138 was George Lucas' first movie and you can tell by watching it that he was headed in the direction of Star Wars in terms of special effects and thoughts on the future. Compared to other science fiction movies of its time, it is pretty solid.

The story, written by Lucas himself along with a friend, definitely fits into the sci-fi/dystopia genre, similar to stories such as 1984 and The Giver and Anthem etc. The setting is gloomy in its white sterility and all of the characters are subdued and passive (except for our 'awakened' protagonist, of course). Personal freedoms are prohibited and life basically sucks. Like other Western movies and books of this genre that were written amidst the Cold War, this awful future is blamed fairly explicitly on communism. Damn commies. Blame who they will, I'd say the plot in THX 1138 is at times a bit tedious, but is overall compelling. The ending is interesting.

I'm glad that Lucas wrote this to take place in the 25th century because I find it seriously hokey when people predicted such extreme change in society to take place in just a few decades (like in 2001 and Soylent Green, both of which claimed that our present would be radically different- man were they far off).

I dare say that the effects were probably pretty cool back in the early 70's, but today of course they look a little phony and cheesy. Considering what they had to work with way back then, in the Stone Age before computers, they're admirable. Yet, I'm not sure why everybody in the 70's thought all future people were going to surround themselves with hundreds of flashing buttons and wear all white uniforms. In a related thought, Lucas definitely recycles the robotic C3PO-like police officers and moving holographs in Star Wars.

As with many of these old sci-fis, I'm glad that I watched it; it's cool to see how far the movie industry, as well as science fiction thought, has come over the years. (Robert Duvall has also aged and changed a bunch since he did this movie as well.) It both gives me a chance to learn up on film history as well as laugh at their elementary attempts at special effects.

The Lovely Bones (2009)

2/3

 

The Lovely Bones is a hard one to rank because I both loved it and hated it.

First off, obviously it was going to contain some seriously awesome and stunning scenery because Peter Jackson was behind the directorial helm. And it did: the heaven scenes where our (dead) protagonist's imagination blended with beautiful nature scenes were amazing- like the tree whose leaves suddenly turned into birds that flew away (see movie poster) or the life-sized ships in a bottle that were crashing ashore. This movie may seem like an odd choice for Jackson to direct, given what it's about, compared to his other films. Actually though, I think his adept ability to deliver such powerful fantastical sequences made this movie work. It does the girl's tale justice.

 

Also, the acting was solid. I tend to like Mark Wahlberg because there's a soft side to his gruff manliness, which definitely shines through here. Our protagonist, Saoirse Ronan (try pronouncing that name), played it just right- ghostly and eerie yet sad and longing. Stanley Tucci played a complete 180 role here especially when you compare this part to that in Julie & Julia or Devil Wears Prada. Finally, Susan Sarandan was hilarious and provided the brief comic relief that we desperately needed half-way through.

Okay, now to the obvious parts that I hated about this movie. I don't think I'm going to be giving anything away by saying that Stanley Tucci's character was a sociopathic pedophile who raped and murdered little girls. And boy was his character a creepy, ugly, scary, and messed up weirdo. I just can't feel at much peace with this movie, no matter how it ends, after having seen a vision of him in a bathtub filled with dirt and blood right after he murdered that girl. I'll bet that many people don't even feel satisfied with the ending, though I won't say anymore.

Overall, The Lovely Bones was a powerful and sad movie that certainly brought out a lot of emotions (including real fear) and hit home for everybody who cares about children and families-- well, for anybody who cares about people. It was written without fear and directed with talent. It's not an easy or really enjoyable movie to watch, but it does do a good job of showing how families struggle to come to terms and cope with such awful tragedies. If you watch it, you will certainly feel digusted and sad with a lesser chance of feeling uplifted.

300 (2006)

2/3

In a way, 300 was both a huge surprise and something of a let down at the same time- thus it averages out to be two stars.

I thought this movie was seriously cool because of the way it was made, its calling card. It felt like an exciting comic book come to life. The intense artistry and unique special effects made the legend and the story of the battle simply awesome (both beautiful and gruesome).

I'd say 300 obviously appealed to my demographic (young male); we've got action and fighting not just in the third act, but all over the place. Gerard Butler is a badass killa with a bad attitude. Not to mention the fact that there were a couple steamy love scenes that were equally comicbook-icized. All the Spartans were glorified to the max and, since I'm a young male I can't help but say that it was a lot of fun watching them kill thousands of Persians. (Wow, that is messed up to say, isn't it?)

But my main complaint about this movie is the predictability of and lack of interest with the stock secondary characters and their flat/action-blockbuster dialogue. Everybody else in the movie other than our protagonist Leonidas was plain old, run-of-the mill boring. Okay, perhaps it was intentional to make all secondary characters as common as possible as a way to emphasize the legendary feel of the story. Maybe they wanted to make it feel like we've heard this tale before, because it has been told time and time again for centuries.

I'll concede the fact that Leonidas' dialogue was allowed to be bellowing and short-winded and angry. Sure, he had to talk like Charlton Heston to pull off the role ("Tonight, we dine in Hell" and "This is Sparta!" etc etc). But why did everyone else have to? The only other even remotely interesting character in the movie was the story teller with one eye (a tip of the hat to Homer perhaps?) because he spoke in sentences longer than four words.

So then. If you're a young male and don't care about how the characters talk or develop, and you're only interested in some blow-your-mind action sequences, then definitely see this movie. If you're a graphic artist or appreciate some great work on the computer, you'd also like 300. If you're a historian, I'm not so sure what you'd think.

Barton Fink (1991)

2/3

It makes sense that I should write a review of Barton Fink right after I write a review of Blue Velvet because they actually have a lot in common. Barton Fink is a strange movie, even for the Coen Brothers. Much like Blue Velvet, it maintains a pervasive sense of general darkness throughout and insanity is a driving (and ever-mounting) force. By the end, it was hard to tell what is real and what is a dream or Fink's imagination or the story he's writing, which is again, similar to Blue Velvet. It's not a happy movie or funny or light-hearted like other Coen Brother movies have been. Yet it was superbly written and acted.

Actually, writing and acting is what this movie relied upon, given that this had to be a low budget film-- no glitzy special effects here (in fact on the contrary, it seems to relish in its own simplicity and starkness). John Goodman was a super and very evil bad guy who reminded me of a ramped-up version of his role as a crooked Bible salesman in O, Brother Where Art Thou?. John Turturro's character, our protagonist, was misguided and self-centered, like many writers are perhaps, though I'm not sure if he really deserved all that befell him in the story. Since he was also lonely and sad; it seems his only real crime was to complain about the noise coming from the hotel room next to his. Or was that just a symptom of a deeper flaw? Hmm...

The secondary characters were not your cliche stock characters, rather they were very interesting: Tony Shalhoub was an eccentric and in-your-face studio exec; Steve Buscemi was a quirky hotel receptionist (Like Wes Anderson, the Coen Brothers like to use the same handful of actors in just about all of their movies, in one role or another); the actor who played the father of Frasier in the sitcom (Steve Mahoney) here played a drunken, washed-up famous author (who I've heard the Coen Brothers based on the life of William Faulkner); the actor playing the producer did a great job making him an awful combination of a mobster (like the boss in Miller's Crossing) and Jerry Cromwell (the evil producer from the novel Karoo by Steve Tesich); even the elevator operator was unique.

Other than the great acting, this movie was full of symbolic/intellectual cinematic/literary 'elements' (I'm sure there's a more accurate term for them)- like the obnoxious mosquito buzzing just out of reach of the camera and the hotel being so hot that the wall paper glue melts and finally the entire floor catches on fire. Being the talented and clever writers/directors they are, the Coen Brothers added in these symbolic 'items' as the cherry on top of their screenplay, to offer a secondary layer of reflection/representation of its bigger themes (like mounting insanity or an evil being let out of the box)- these 'items' also add to the mystique and fascinating character of the film.

I guess that the Coen Brothers are known for writing interesting characters and clever stories that are offbeat and that make you think. This one was no different in that regard; Barton Fink was just one of their dark movies. I'd say it's in line with their Blood Simple and No Country for Old Men, both of which are tragic and gruesome stories. So all in all, I enjoyed it while at the same time found it nerve-wracking and awful- and that's why I respect it and consider it a well-made movie. Maybe if it were cheerful instead of gloomy, it would get 3 stars.

Law Abiding Citizen (2009)

2/3

I probably wouldn't have gone to see Law Abiding Citizen if it hadn't been for my next-door neighbor. I didn't think that I would like it based on the commercials, but he wanted to go see it, so we went, and I liked it enough to give it two stars.

I think it succeeded in being suspenseful. We constantly wanted to know how Gerard Butler's character was able to carry out his deadly plans while he was locked away in jail, under constant surveillance. The stakes got higher and so did the mystery and intrigue. There were also several "wow" scenes that made me jump and say 'wow.' They were mostly disgusted wows, but they were still wows. So that's what prevented this movie from being a one star, because it's fun to watch exciting, suspenseful movies.

On the other hand, Law Abiding Citizen fell into some standard Hollywood blockbuster writing traps. In the quest to make the movie suspenseful, the screenwriter made a few things a little bit ridiculous and unbelievable: like how the mayor of Philadelphia shut down the whole city because she was afraid of one criminal. Secondly, a few lines of dialogue meant to be serious and dramatic came off as majorly cheesy- in fact, some audience members laughed out loud a couple times at what were supposed to be serious moments. Also finally, Butler's character was basically godlike in his abilities and I'm just not so sure one man, no matter how angry or genius he is, could have planned out so many details of this plan. Okay, so obviously it is a movie and we're supposed to remember that in order to enjoy it better.

But I must mention one final disappointment with the film before I critique its take-away message. I was pretty let down by the revelation of how Butler's character carried out his plan while in jail. I won't spoil the surprise, but it was simply too hokey and cliche to fully satisfy the curiosity that built throughout the entire movie, in my opinion.

To the overarching theme now. I don't know if it was meant to be ambiguous of if we were supposed to sympathize/side with Butler. Bad men broke into his house and killed his daughter then raped and killed his wife all in front of Butler's eyes, then nearly killed him. When Jamie Foxx, the District Attorney, decides to make a deal with one of the bad guys to really nail the other one in court, Butler feels betrayed by the judicial system, gets irate and plans to get even with everybody ten years later. Anyway, Butler mercilessly tortures the bad guys to death, kills judges, blows up lawyers, and stabs inmates with sporks in jail as payback. The audience in my theater cheered at the torture and applauded when the female judge got shot in the face.

Is it okay to take the law into your own hands when you feel unjustly treated? Is torture okay? Is it okay to kill innocent people to make a point? Do criminals deserve to be put to death? I answer no to all of these questions, but I think it puts me in the minority in my country. (And, according to the reactions of my theater, I know it did in my audience too.) Sure, what the bad guys did was seriously awful and despicable and of course I'm disgusted by it, completely against it. But torture is never ever okay, in my opinion, no matter how bad of a guy the torturee is.

Plus, as Foxx's character says in the movie, the US judicial system is run on the concept that it's not what you know, but it's what you can prove in court. This is the only way that innocent people on trial are protected, and even then we still end up putting away (or executing) the wrong person. Butler's character failed to understand that. In the end, he turned out to be just as messed up and crooked as the people who killed his family, I think.

So I'm skeptical about the meaning behind Law Abiding Citizen and am uneasy with the fact that it made money because people in this country agreed with its principles. Hopefully many moviegoers questioned some of this stuff and thought, like I did, that Butler's character was seriously messed up. Again, morality aside, this movie succeeded in being suspenseful.

Blue Velvet (1986)

2/3

Blue Velvet had to earn my respect, even though it was so dark and eerie and enigmatic: the world that writer/director David Lynch created in this movie was so unique and interesting, be it deeply disturbed (I mean, look at the movie poster) that you just have to say 'wow.' I don't think that there are many people in Hollywood that have Lynch's ability or state of mind and I guess that's why I admired this film.

My Introduction to Screenwriting professor probably would have labeled the plot of Blue Velvet as "episodic," meaning that random things keep happening to the main characters, instead of things happening or 'growing' out of necessity. I may be inclined to agree with that thought, but in this case, I don't think it's a bad thing. In a way, the main character's random stumbling around town makes sense in regard to the style of this movie; Lynch has made the story flow like a bad dream, almost psychedelically.

After watching the movie, I couldn't help but tune in to some of the making-of documentary on my DVD's special features, to try to get a little insight. Somebody in the documentary clip mentioned how Lynch has sort of become America's Luis Bunel, and I can sort of see that. I watched Bunel's Tristana (1970) for a Spanish film class and I remember how it was full of very strange camera shots and symbolic references in his random standoutish tactics (for example, the phallic bell that turned out to be the decapitated head of a lustful father-figure). Anyway, Lynch seems to have locked on to a similar mentality about how to create a strange and gloomy, confusing world by using odd film techniques. In fact, later on in the documentary on Blue Velvet, somebody else mention the term "American Surrealism," which, yeah, makes sense.

Dennis Hopper had just finished rehab before making this movie. Apparently, his agent begged him not to play this role because of the probable negative image it would portray of him, and I can see why. Hopper was very scary and a crazy bad guy who did a wonderful (or awful?!) performance. What a creepy part!

Isabella Rossini is also a person of interest in this movie because she too is one of the eerie mysterious characters wrapped up in the dark plot. She realistically portrays insanity as well as personified, messed-up sexual desires. We can't help but wonder how her character ended up being so crazy-- was it caused by drugs or getting involved with the wrong people or the trauma inflicted by Hopper's character? Whatever the cause, damn.

Throughout the movie, the line "It's a strange world" kept on being repeated in different settings by different people. And I think that sums up Lynch's take on our world, at least as he showed it to us in Blue Velvet. He certainly likes to create these weird and crazy people and events, but he never explicitly answers our questions to solve the mystery. I suppose that for a lot of people, this can get on their nerves. His style is definitely not for everyone. But if you're into weird stories and are up for a unique and interesting style, I recommend this movie. It's at the minimum unforgettable.

Fantastic Mr. Fox (2009)

2/3

Even though Fantastic Mr. Fox was a stop-action movie allegedly meant for children, you could still tell undeniably that it was a Wes Anderson production. It's fair to say that throughout the years Anderson (who is only 40!) has garnered a strong cult following (other notable films of his include: The Royal Tenenbaums, The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou, and The Darjeeling Limited). Though his movies are often offbeat and a bit funky, I think they pack a lot of heart. They give a perhaps skewed yet sincere perspective on the world and on basic human relationships. Since I'm a sucker for strange movies, I'm a fan; I have a lot of respect for his interesting, unique style and I was pleased that Fantastic Mr. Fox kept the same feel.

One of the most obvious reasons Fantastic Mr. Fox is similar to his other movies, is that the same ever-present group of Anderson's favorite actors made their appearances (albeit in cartoonish animal form this time): Bill Murray as a badger-lawyer, a Wilson brother (Owen this time) as a gym coach, and Jason Schwartzman as Mr. Fox's son, Ash. These friends help make Anderson's movies what they are and I can't imagine not having them.

In a similar vein, I was impressed by the number of other big names doing voices (George Clooney, Meryl Streep, William Dafoe, Michael Gambon AKA Dumbledore). This probably points to the fact that Anderson is getting a lot of street cred in Hollywood these days, as he deserves, and people are really taking him seriously. Though I'm sure everybody in LA has known he's a genius from the very beginning.

As far as dialogue goes, Fantasic Mr. Fox retained Anderson's subtle humor and cool-headed/almost passive/laid-back observations of life. How can I explain this? Sentences are short and super-condensed. They are to the point. There were many quirky obsessions, like the word "cuss." Though naturally there was action and drama, the way the characters talk makes it seem like everything is under control. Or maybe it's that all his characters have resigned to the fact that life is life and we can't change things. Do we take it seriously or can we laugh at it? Both maybe:

Ash: You should probably put your bandit hat on now. Personally, I- I don't have one, but I modified this tube sock.
Kristofferson: You look good.
Ash: Yeah, I do.

Finally, even though it was via a new medium, the movie maintained Anderson’s interesting way of shooting scenes. I may also lack an accurate way of describing it, but I certainly know it when I see it. His shots are slow and the camera stays in one place and lets the small things happen. In a way, we see things in the same way his characters talk- quiet/still.

Which brings me to another interesting point about this movie: Stop-action animation. The eyes of the characters were strange. It felt like the color scheme was brown and orange, making it seem straight from the 70's. Most films using this medium are meant for children. And, although there were lots of kids in the theater, I'm not so sure they connected with this story as much as they would, say a Disney movie. I think lots of the subtleties of the dialogue and many of the jokes were lost on them.

The story was amusing and felt like an old fashioned fable with a lesson involved (something the kids may have been able to pick up on): don't be greedy. Also, be yourself. So, I for one enjoyed watching this movie, quirks and all.