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.

Contagion (2011)

3/3

This review has simmered for a while but I finally decided it’s a three because of its unique spin on this outbreak/super-virus/zombie theme. It was realistic and very thoughtful/pensive/methodical/measured. The director, Steven Soderbergh, really strove to make it play like it would probably work in real life, i.e. it wasn't science fiction. But beyond that, it was the tale of the heroes in this world who risk their lives and reputations, break convention, to do the right thing. We got lots of different perspectives and levels of it, from top to bottom.

There were also bad guys: it was interesting that the young journalist/blogger was made to be an antagonist and it showed how he was really corrupt and used the public’s fear for profit, all while manipulating their thoughts and exascerbating the problem. People directly died because of the chaos he helped promulgate. Also, the unfaithful gambling alcoholic wife had a lot of blame, as well as the multinational company she worked for that was clear-cutting in the Third World. There was some real skepticism of goverment, politicians, the military and CIA as well.

In the end, the movie tells of how these heroes worked to try to beat the virus, find practical solutions, and save the world, which is a different ending to these kind of movies too: it was optimistic and provided hope, which is refreshing. So even though this is not what I was expecting from the title, I liked its overall message.

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.

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.

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.