Men In Black 3 - Review

Men In Black 3... the threequel nobody wanted to a franchise that hasn't been relevant for almost a decade. I admit it's a bit strange that I could be so uninterested in a sequel to a film that I genuinely loved. The first Men In Black, released in 1998, was one of the most entertaining sci-fi comedies ever made. With a clever concept, sharp script, and memorable performances from Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones, MIB was a top notch summer blockbuster that still holds up nearly 15 years later. While the movie itself wasn't particularly profound or insightful, it did include some interesting themes and ideas that could have (or rather should have) been developed through sequels or an expanded universe. Themes of an endless universe, our place in the galaxy, or unexplored worlds all have decent potential and could have made for a great film franchise. The second movie, however, was pretty much a dud. While it did have a couple decent action scenes and a handful of chuckles, it was little more than a generic retread of the first movie with a dull villain and no surprises. Low expectations not withstanding, does MIB 3 make up for it's predecessor's shortcomings or should this movie be neuralyzed from one's memory?

The film picks up approximately 10 years after the events of MIB II. Agents K and J (Tommy Lee Jones and Will Smith) are still partners for MIB, continuing to monitor extra-terrestrial life on Earth and protecting their planet from aggressive alien forces. During this time, a vicious alien named Boris The Animal (Jermaine Clement) that K had caught and incarcerated in 1969, escapes from his lunar prison and returns to Earth. Upon his return, he locates Earth's only time travel device to go back 33 years earlier to prevent's his previous defeat. After J discovers Boris' plan, he himself goes to the past to meet up with the 29-year-old K (Josh Brolin) and stop Boris The Animal again.

Right up front, how does this one compare to it's predecessors? I will say this much, part 3 is an improvement over the second... slightly. Though, I think it goes without saying that it doesn't hold a candle to the first. Men In Black 3, unfortunately, falls victim to many of the faults of Part II... albeit not quite as many. Once again, instead of exploring any promising or interesting sci-fi ideas, MIB3 resorts to telling what is essentially the same damn story as the first with a gimmicky time-travel plot.

Time travel, in theory at least, could have actually been a promising idea for MIB to explore, but instead of doing anything interesting, it relegates the concept to little more than a bunch of 70s themed pop-culture gags, most of which are not very funny or clever. Plus, as with most time travel movies, leads to a number of frustratingly unexplained plot-holes regarding continuity and space-time continuum. The main reason the filmmakers decided to set this one in the past, to begin with, was because Tommy Lee Jones had a tight shooting schedule and could not commit to anything long term. That might have been for the better, since whenever Tommy Lee Jones was actually on screen, he looked barely invested. The same could probably be said for Will Smith. Don't get me wrong, neither one gave a bad performance per se, but there's just something missing here. I remember in the first, it looked like they were having a great time in their respective roles, like they loved the concept and were enjoying the ride. Here... it looks like they had more of a "Let's get this over with" attitude. Like I said, neither one is bad, but without their natural chemistry and humorous banter from the original, they're not nearly as fun as they could have been.

Fortunately, there are two actors that do manage to pick up a bit of the slack. Josh Brolin is hands down the show-stealer here as the young Agent K. Not only was his impression of Tommy Lee Jones spot-on, but he seemed like the only actor actually invested in his role. He has a few decent emotional scenes, handles himself with the action, and pretty much owns every scene he's in. The villainous Boris the Animal is played by Flight of the Concords co-star Jermaine Clement. Aside from Brolin, Clement is probably the most enjoyable part of the movie. His over-the-top shtick manages to get a few good laughs and provide a few passable thrills. While his character is maybe a little too similar to Vincent D'Onofrio's alien bug from the original, he works for the most part. At the very least, he's far better than the villain from the sequel. I guess you have to take what you can get.

In terms of the rest of the film... I don't actually have much to say. The action is predictably decent, the special effects are hit-and-miss, and the production elements overall work but aren't anything amazing. The make-up effects are all pretty cool but a lot of the cgi isn't very convincing. The movie has a few cool action scenes, but there's nothing I'm going to remember a few weeks from now. To be honest, I don't what else to say really... everything is just kind of there.

Overall... Men In Black 3 is one of those movies that just doesn't make much of an impression. It's not terrible by any means but it's definitely not a good movie. It's unfortunate that what once started as an incredibly promising sci-fi franchise was followed by two mediocre sequels, but even when you put aside any comparisons, there's just nothing special about this movie. I'd say if you want to see this one, wait to rent it on DVD.

My Score: 2.5 out of 5

Battle Royale - Review

It's been a while since I've reviewed a non-new release. I really should write more of them, since one of the main reasons I started this blog was to introduce or re-introduce moviegoers to film they may not have heard of or at least haven't seen in a while. Right now, I can't think of a better movie to review than the 2000 cult classic Japanese film, Battle Royale. In my mostly negative review of The Hunger Games, one of my main critiques was that it was basically a neutered down ripoff of Battle Royale. I re-watched the Battle Royale after viewing The Hunger Games to see if the former actually held up or if I had spoken too soon. Does Battle Royale still deliver the goods or has the concept lost its luster?

Battle Royale is based on the novel of the same name by Koushun Takami. Both the novel and the film takes place in early 21st century Japan. The country's economy and government is all but in ruins. Unemployment is at an all time high and crime rates have risen exponentially, with the country's youth at the forefront of it's crimes. In an effort to control the rebellious teenagers, the government approves the Battle Royale Act, a program where one class of 42 students is randomly selected to fight in a vicious 3-day battle to the death. The students are taken to a remote island, given a small bag of food, water, and a weapon. They're also forced to wear electric collars which instantly kill the wearer should they tamper with them or find a way off the island. After the 3 day time limit, if more than one student is still standing, everyone's collar explodes and nobody survives. With time as a factor, the once-peaceful students are forced to either kill their friends and companions... or find a way to beat the system.

I'm going to try my best to avoid comparing Battle Royale to The Hunger Games. It wouldn't be fair to Battle Royale, since the movie pre-dates The Hunger Games by nearly a decade. Still, because The Hunger Games is fresh in so many people's minds (myself included), I might feel compelled to make a comparison here and there. With that said, I'm just going to get this out of the way... which one is better, Hunger Games or Battle Royale? Well, despite the nearly identical premise, they're actually quite different. One is a compelling and suspenseful, action packed satirical thriller with top notch filmmaking and interesting characters. The other is a below average action film geared toward teenage audiences that, despite a promising setup and cast, bombards you with shoddy camera work, bland action, stale characters, goofy costume, derivative production design, and a watered down message because it's filmmakers were too afraid to take it's promising themes into the compelling dark depth the film so-very-much wanted to go. In other words... Battle Royale makes The Hunger Games it's bitch!

Okay... I promise to stop talking trash about The Hunger Games. Despite my less-than-enthusiastic review, I really don't hate the movie as much as I let on. The truth is... I just like to piss off geeks and fanboys. I say that full well knowing that I am a huge nerd myself, but I digress. With all that said... let's move onto Battle Royale.

It's easy to see why Battle Royale has become such a prominent cult classic. The topic of teens slaughtering each other may not seem quite as taboo as it did ten years ago thanks to the release of the aforementioned flick with a similar concept (I know, I promised), but to see just how far this movie is willing to go is quite mind blowing. I don't consider myself a foreign film expert, but many films I've seen to come out of Japan have been pretty sick (huge understatement in some cases), so I can't say I was totally surprised or shocked to see how far Battle Royale went, especially with my background in the horror genre. Still, it's hard to deny that this is one hell of a violent movie. Basically it takes the pacing and setting of a survivalist thriller and throws in the over-the-top gore of a splatter-house flick. It's made all the more gut-wrenching when you remember that all the violence it being done to or by a bunch of 14-year-olds. Fortunately, Battle Royale doesn't go straight for shock value. The action scenes are shot and carried out with an eye for suspense and tension. In other words, it's full of well-framed shots plus a good sense of pacing. It's one hell of a thrilling ride from start to finish.

So the film is action packed and excessively violent, that much is known, but the main question is this... does the story pack an equal punch? For the most part... yes. I don't want to over-praise it, seeing how the script has a few hiccups here and there, but overall it's pretty damn good. It's themes of youth rebellion and governmental collapse rings similar to Kubrick's 1971 classic, "A Clockwork Orange." (One of my favourite films of all time). The idea that Japan would result to pitting it's youth against each other in a barbaric fight to the death is admittedly a little far fetched, but it nonetheless presents an interesting "what-if" scenario that's intriguing to watch... even if it can't help but come off as a little preachy. I liked the way the film tried to set up each of it's characters as well. Even though the acting can't help but come off as a little melodramatic, the characters in their own right were pretty interesting. Some were given backstories while others were limited to just being in the background. Fortunately, the writers made the effort to give as many as they could some degree of depth. Few of them are generic evil or good, but rather have certain shades of grey which make them feel more human. Some of the most memorable moments came from the students being forced to kill or be killed, and just how their actions affected their psyche. It's pretty intense stuff that rarely lets up and is all but guaranteed to stick with you long after you finish watching it.

Now don't get me wrong, Battle Royale isn't for everyone. The gratuitous violence and edgy subject matter is bound to be too much for some, but for anyone that can handle the buckets of blood, this one is definitely recommended. Not a perfect movie, but a very good one and a must watch for anyone who can handle it.

My Score: 4 out of 5!

The Avengers - Review

Every so often, a movie announcement will come along that will make all the nerds and fanboys scream with glee. Back in the mid 2000s, Marvel Comics announced that they were going to buy back as many of their characters and properties as they could with the intention of creating an expansive in-continuity multi-film universe akin to their expansive comic book universe. This, in itself, was pretty cool, but the biggest news was yet to come. In 2008, Marvel Studios released Iron Man, the first Marvel film in their experimental movie continuity. The major announcement came in a special scene after the credits, where Nick Fury came up to Tony Stark, and said two words that made every nerd's jaw hit the floor... "Avenger Initiative!!!" To the comic book uninitiated, this might have not meant much, but for all the nerds, geeks, and fanboys, this blew our minds!!! Just the thought of a series of films building up to one epic team-up of some of Marvel's biggest and greatest superheroes to ever exist would be one of the coolest and most ambitious filmmaking endeavours to ever be attempted. Now four years and five movies later, The Avengers has hit theatres. Does it live up to the hype???

So as mentioned, The Avengers follows the events of five previous Marvel films. They include Iron Man 1 & 2, The Incredible Hulk, Captain America, and Thor. In addition to the main characters, certain story elements from each film makes is implemented into The Avengers. Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the Norse God of Mischief, makes his way Earth after his supposed defeat at the hands of his brother Thor. He infiltrates the government agency SHIELD, in efforts to steal the Tesseract, (known to comic fans as the cosmic cube) an artifact that will grant him the power to conquer the planet (the same artifact from Captain America). With the fate of the world at risk, SHIELD director Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) assembles a team of Earth's mightiest heroes to save the world from certain doom. Leading the team is the war hero, Steve Rogers aka Captain America (Chris Evans), fighting alongside him is technological genius/playboy Tony Stark aka Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr), the Norse God of Thunder Thor (Chris Hemsworth), scientist-turned-monster Bruce Banner aka The Incredible Hulk, SHEILD agent Natasha Romanov aka Black Widow (Scarlett Johansen), and SHIELD soldier/marksman Clint Barton aka Hawkeye (Jeremy Renner). While time is a factor, the team must overcome their personal differences in order to save the world from certain destruction.

Now, I'll be first to admit that the story behind this concept is pretty standard and almost face slappingly simple. It's your typical hero(es) takes on the evil villain bent on destroying the world. On the surface, there's nothing particularly inventive, but The Avengers has two things going for the premise that gives it a bit more flair. The first of which is the aforementioned previous-movie build-up. Since the movie had five movies released prior to this one introducing it's numerous characters, The Avengers doesn't have to spend a large portion of it's runtime introducing any of them in great detail. They provide the basic character intros and refreshers that get you up to speed and provide just enough exposition to get the story in motion.

The other shining element of The Avengers screenplay is the character interactions. Here is a movie with writers that know how to get the most out of a story with a group of characters with dynamic traits and personalities. The screenplay itself was provided compliments of Zak Penn and geek icon Joss Whedon (who also directed the film). Whedon himself brought his trademark writing sensibilities from his hit sci-fi/fantasy movies and shows like Serenity/Firefly and Buffy, and brought them the Marvel Universe. Namely that it's character interactions are what ultimately raise The Avengers from being simplistic and average to well above average. There's an engaging group dynamic that keeps the story moving and makes the conflict more suspenseful. There's tension between Stark and Rogers, a meeting of geniuses between Stark and Banner, the sibling rivalry of Thor and Loki, a subtle romantic subplot between Black Widow and Hawkeye, and Nick Fury trying to keep the team together. Amongst the drama however, is a solid sense of pacing and thrilling action, with a few memorably humorous bits to keep the movie light-hearted when it needs to be. Now, I don't want to over-praise this script here too much. Fanboyism aside, The Avengers is a thoroughly above average script aided by it's charismatic actors (more on that next), solid pacing, and mostly well-developed characters. It's neither deep nor particularly inventive, but for a straightforward superhero team-up action movie, it has just about everything you would expect and hits nearly all of the requisite notes.

For me, what ultimately elevated The Avengers from being good to great, is the excellent cast. The team of heroes features nearly every actor returning from their previous Marvel franchise, with the exception of Mark Ruffalo as the new Bruce Banner/Hulk (apparently Edward Norton, the previous Hulk, had a falling out with the producers). My first concern when this film was in development was how all of these actors could come together without any one actor upstaging another. Fortunately, I am happy to report that every actor brings a certain charm to this movie and their respective characters with a near-perfect balance of development and interaction. There's a natural sense of chemistry between the cast, and while there are a few stand-out performances, each one has great appeal and at least one moment to shine. The first stand-out performance, however, is probably Tom Hiddleston returning as the villainous Loki. They took what was arguably the best part of Thor and gave the Avengers a suitably evil and intelligent villain to oppose. It doesn't delve as much into his personal struggles as they did in Thor, but he brings the same depth to his performance here that worked so well the first time.

The other stand-out actor, as everyone has been talking about, is Mark Ruffalo as the new Hulk. Oddly enough, The Incredible Hulk is one of Marvel's more recognizable heroes, yet few people have any fond feelings for the Hulk's previous film outings. He's mainly known for the campy yet entertaining show starring Lou Ferrigno (who does the voice of the Hulk here too). After that, there was the Ang Lee-directed 2003 movie Hulk... a good effort yet disappointing movie. A few years later, he returned in the very fun and underrated 2008 and Avenger-connected film, The Incredible Hulk (seriously, very few people saw that movie, despite the fact that it's actually quite good). I think this might be the turning point for the character, as many of the film's stand out scenes, especially the action scenes, are memorably carried out by Ruffalo both as Dr. Banner and his great motion capture work as the Hulk himself. He brings a certain vulnerability and depth to his Banner persona while allowing him to go nuts and have fun as his monstrous alter-ego. In other words, Hulk smashed my expectations.

Now with all that said, I imagine most people are going into this movie expecting the requisite big budget action. If that's what your going in for, I can all but guarantee that you'll leave happy. You expecting some brutal one-on-one fights between heroes and villains (or even heroes and heroes)... you've got it! Or maybe you're looking for some giant cgi monsters... there's those too. How about loads of property destruction and massive explosions... yeah, you're covered! The action is certainly erratic, but well shot and never overly daunting. It's big and loud for sure, but it doesn't bombard you to a point that you can't follow what's happening (thank God Michael Bay didn't direct this). If all you're looking for is your standard summer blockbuster action, this has pretty much everything you could want.

Now, with all the film's pros, there are a couple little things to nitpick. The first little hiccup comes on behalf of Captain America. When we last saw him at the end of his movie, he had been frozen for nearly 70 years, only to be discovered and thawn out by SHIELD. There's little mention of how he had adjusted to the new setting or his new updated costume. By the way, while Cap's new modern outfit is pretty cool, it doesn't quite have the same pulpy-retro appeal of his WWII uniform. On that note, Hawkeye's outfit comes off as rather boring compared to the colorful costumes of his counterparts. I don't know what they couldn't have designed one more akin to his comic book counterpart. There are a few bits of character development that feel a tad bit rushed too, namely Dr. Banner's transformation to the Hulk right before the finale (you'll know when you see it). From what I've been told, a lot has been cut out of this to cut down the runtime. That's the catch I suppose, sacrificing a few relatively unneeded plot points in favor of better pacing. Personally, considering the subject matter, I'm amazed the film feels as tight as it is. So there's a few little nitpicks and hiccups, but nothing major.

In short, The Avengers is just about everything you could ever want in a big budget blockbuster. You've got sweet action, awesome special effects, fun characters, an enjoyable story, and sharp direction from Joss Whedon. It's not too violent for the kids nor too dumb for the adults. Marvel's mega-ambitious experiment to bring an inter-connected movie universe culminating in the greatest team-up of live action superheroes may have seemed crazy... but they pulled it off! Definitely check this one out!

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

Cabin In The Woods - Review

Cabin In The Woods may very well be the most difficult movie I've had to review on this blog. Beyond the typical, "see it, skip it" recommendation or my usual run-down of what works and what doesn't, it's next to impossible to properly critique or analyze this movie without giving away nearly every plot detail, twist, and aspect. And let me make this clear... the less you know about this one, the better! So I'm going to do my absolute best to try and give you a review that's as spoiler-free as possible. I'll say this much, I won't reveal any of the major twists or anything that's not revealed by the trailer. Though, if you're looking for my verdict on whether you should see Cabin In The Woods, the answer is a huge resounding YES!!! If you're not a fan of gory violence or horror movies, than you might want to approach this with caution, but for anyone else, this is a movie that you should have seen yesterday!

The plot behind Cabin In The Woods is one of the most creative ideas I've seen in a while. It's a horror/comedy that both celebrates and pokes fun at the cliches of horror movies while satirizing the people who make them and the audiences who watch them. It uses an overtold horror movie scenario, this one involving a group of teens a particular genre-archetype. There's the nice virgin, the blonde nympho, the jock, the nerd, and the comic relief stoner. For spring break, the group goes on a retreat to an isolated cabin in the woods far away from civilization. This cabin, however, has a dark secret. It is being monitored by a shady organization who seem to have their sights set on the unfortunate teens. No suddenly the weekend retreat turns into a terrifying mystery and fight for survival. I know that sounds like nothing more than a generic dime-a-dozen teen slasher flick, but I'm really caught between a rock and a hard place with this plot description. If I reveal any more, I'll probably end up spoiling too much, and I refuse to spoil any more about this movie than I already have. Trust me when I say this, but Cabin In The Woods takes it's cliche elements and uses them to create one of the most witty and interesting satires about the horror genre. 

Now you might be thinking to yourself, "Hey Chris! This sounds an awful lot like Scream." To that I say... yes, they have similarities, but these are two very different genre satires. Mainly because Scream is an overrated horror flick with only occasional moments of cleverness, while Cabin In The Woods is a near perfect blend of thrills, laughs, and satire that paints both a loving and critical depiction of the genre. While Scream managed to make a few insightful comments on the cliches of the horror genre, none of it's satire was particularly enlightening. Plus, it never really managed to deliver the requisite thrills that you would expect in a horror movie. Cabin In The Woods, on the other hand, gives you all that and then some. This movie is scary, thrilling, and funny... usually all at the same time. 

Eeesh... this is difficult. I know exactly why this movie is so good, but I just don't know how to explain it without revealing anything. That's just the problem, the story has different twists and turns at every corner, that revealing even one bit might give away some crucial surprises. I guess I'll give my rundown of the cast. Overall, everybody does a good job. It's pretty clear that every actor (or at least the teens) is playing a generic archetype, but for the most part, the do a good job. Jesse Williams was the nerdy character, and looks wise, he didn't really pass off as much of a nerd. The same could go for Kristen Connolly, who was supposed to be the virgin, again not really buying that. I guess that might have been part of the joke, as teen horror actors often look too pretty for the real world and not particularly realistic. So for that, I guess I'll give it the benefit of the doubt. Some of the supporting cast is pretty fun, including Billy Madison's Bradley Whitford and a cameo from the great Sigourney Weaver. 

Now, here's something I can get into. If you go into this movie wanting nothing more the straightforward horror movie thrills... you'll be leaving very happy. The first two thirds are about what you would expect. There's the requisite slasher violence that fans of Friday The 13th can't get enough of. You know, isolated cabin, teens, and the crazy psychopaths tormenting them. Nothing hugely special but it does the job. The third act, however, that's another story. Here's a movie that goes where many filmmakers would be afraid to go. Just when you think the movie is about to end, it turns the suspense dial to eleven and goes nuts! Blood, guts, mayhem, it's all there! For horror fans, it's about as good as it gets.

I think that will do for now. I know this isn't the most detailed review I've written, but like I said, the less you know, the better. Cabin in the Woods come highly recommended, and it's one I'll be buying on Blu Ray the day it comes out.

My Score: 4.5 out of 5!

The Hunger Games - Review

Eeesh... talk about a hyped up movie! I guess it's paying off though, if the early box office reports are any indication, this will probably be the next big pop culture phenomenon the will linger on long after it's welcome has worn off. At least I can take some consolation knowing that something is finally starting to dethrone Twilight as the next biggest craze ever (if you've read my review for Twilight, you know I have a particularly angry hatred for that series). Fortunately the hype didn't really impact my thoughts on the movie. I went in with mostly neutral expectations and didn't buy into much of the hype. After all that said, here is my opinion... The Hunger Games is a massively flawed movie that doesn't live up to it's glowing reputation. Sorry folks, but I gotta tell it like I see it.

The movie takes place in an undisclosed year in the future. It's approximately 75 years from now, and North America has become a semi-apocalyptic dictatorship. The nation is divided into twelve districts, most of which poverty stricken (and no, there are no aliens on District 9). Every year, a government regulated competition known as The Hunger Games takes place, in which 24 teenagers aged 12-18 (one male and one female from each district) go the nation's capital and are released into the woods to fight in a barbaric fight to the death. The games themselves are a yearly reminder of Capitol's authority and as a punishment for a rebellion that took place over 70 years ago. The main character is Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) of District 12. When her 12-year-old sister is randomly chosen to compete, Katniss volunteers to take her place. Shortly afterward, she is shipped off to Capitol and prepares to compete in the 74th annual Hunger Games. At the risk of spoiling anymore of this story... I'm going to stop here.

I know I'm about to piss off a whole bunch of people, but the more I think of what I saw, the more I can't shake how many mistakes this movie made. With the exception of some strong performances (more on that later), nearly every element of this movie is one consecutive fail after another. The story is derivative, the writing is predictable, the costumes look ridiculous, the cinematography is awful, the special effects are unconvincing, and... the list goes on.

Let's get the good out of the way first... the acting. Jennifer Lawrence has been starting to make a name for herself with an Oscar-nominated role in Winter's Bone and another strong performance as Mystique in X-Men: First Class. Once again, Lawrence shows that she is a force to be reckoned with, bringing her natural dramatic range and charisma to the role of Katniss Everdeen. A true talent for sure, at the very least, I'm hoping her widespread acclaim here in The Hunger Games will continue to land her good roles. Josh Hutcherson does a solid job as Peeta Mellark, the male contestant from District 12. With an extensive filmography of already good performances, there's really not much I can say other than he's a talented actor. Add in some strong supporting work from Donald Sutherland, Woody Harrelson, and Lenny Kravitz along with some campy performances from Elizabeth Banks and Stanely Tucci and you've got a mostly successful cast. I don't always agree with the direction the actors were always given, but that's another gripe I'll save for later. The cast itself is at the very least passable, at times even great.

Now let's get the first problem out of the way... the story! It's typical to dismiss The Hunger Games as a shameless rip-off of the cult classic book/movie Battle Royale. Now, I don't know if the book's author, Suzanne Collins, was influenced in any way by Battle Royale or if it was just a huge coincidence. Neither one would surprise me, but to be honest, that's not the main problem here anyways. A film being unoriginal isn't really a deal-breaker. Many enjoyable, sometimes excellent or classic, movies have essentially "paid homage" to other works that came before it. There's Avatar (Dances with Wolves), The Terminator (works by Harlan Ellison), Star Wars (Flash Gordon, The Man With No Name Trilogy, Kurosawa's samurai films, and a lot more actually) to name a few. So, when you really get down to it, the fact that The Hunger Games is a Battle Royale knockoff, with elements of The Running Man, a dash of Rollerball, a sprinkled with a little of 1984 for good measure, really isn't that big of a concern as long as the filmmakers can make up for the lack of originality in the other departments. Sadly, they do not.

First problem with the script... the characters. The primary character, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the only character who comes close to working. She is a noble, skilled, and self-sacrificing individual with reasonably enough development and enough depth to support the story. Her skills and noble attitude appear right from the start, from her adept bow-hunting abilities and her willingness to talk her sister's place as tribute for the games. She doesn't have much of a traditional story-arc, at least not in the manner of which she pretty much remains the same loyal and dedicated individual from start to finish, but the way she faces conflict and remains a likable character you want to see triumph, at the very least makes her passable.

My main gripe, however, is with the "villains," or at least, the characters you're not directly routing for. What's the problem with them??? Most of them are portrayed in a campy or foppish manner with overly colorful and goofy costumes and hair styles to coincide with their over-the-top humorous personalities. Now, before you start saying, "Hey Chris! It's the future, they're supposed to look funny!" let me tell you, that argument doesn't work. Now, I can buy that in 75 years from now, fashion will have dramatically changed and might look as strange as depicted in The Hunger Games... BUT there are many things to don't add up. For starters, even though certain futuristic sci-fi movies like The Fifth Element, Demolition Man, or Tank Girl also featured silly-looking fashion styles, the costumes in The Hunger Games just don't clash with the drab or "normal" looking outfits of the heroes. Not to mention, those other movies all had a campy, tongue-in-cheek, sense of humor while The Hunger Games takes a dead-serious tone. The main problem, however, is just how non-threatening they're all depicted, especially the "evil" government. Seeing how campy and goofy they're portrayed, it's hard to buy them as an all-powerful dictatorship. I mean, out of all the movies they could have ripped off, they should have looked to some truly intimidating totalitarian regimes like those from 1984 or V For Vendetta. I can kind of see where they were going with these choices, but none of them really worked.

The last group of characters to take note of are the other teens competing in the Hunger Games. First's there's Katniss' male counterpart, Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson). Why he was named after an animal rights group I'll never know, but to be fair, he's an okay character. He was mainly brought in to serve as a love interest that feels a tad bit forced, but as a supporting character, I don't have too many criticisms. The rest of the tributes don't get a whole lot of development. Most are generic, one-note, and evil who thrive off the kills they obtain, while a couple others are more sympathetic. Unfortunately, the black and white contrasts in personalities doesn't add for a whole lot of interesting moments. For starters, it's partially because you can tell right from the start who is going to survive and who is going to die. More importantly, however, is that it makes for a very unfortunate missed opportunity. Because everyone is so generically good or evil, it doesn't allow for a whole lot of gut wrenching moments or questions of choice. Think about this... in an environment where it's kill or be killed and only one can be left standing, emotions would run high and one's true character would be put to the test. When would you be forced to kill against your will or to harm someone who didn't deserve it in order to save yourself? With the exception of one or two moments, the movie isn't willing to go that far or tackle ideas that dark. Again, a missed opportunity.

The film nobly tackles some important subjects like propaganda newscast, class disparity, and reality TV. These are all relevant subjects to satirize and at times The Hunger Games makes a decent point or observation here and there. Unfortunately, once again any relevant satire the movie provides stands in the shadows of better and more interesting material. The whole, reality TV/gladiatorial hybrid wore off it's welcome when Arnold Schwarzenegger did it in 1987's The Running Man. Plus, the potentially edgy concept of teens slaughtering each other for sport reeks of "been-there-done-that" thanks to the aforementioned comparisons to Battle Royale. It doesn't help that the PG-13 rating ultimately forces a censored level of violence and brutality that could have helped the movie sell it's satire. Granted, it pushes the rating to it's limits, but still doesn't go far enough. Unfortunately, despite any the movie's worthy attempt at some relevant subject matter, it just doesn't work. Any good ideas this movie has either come off as half-assed or overly familiar.

Now, in addition to the good performances, if there was one thing that could have salvaged this film, it's the action. And... like all of The Hunger Games' other shortcomings, the action falls flat too. For reasons I can't explain, so many filmmakers have become obsessed with handheld style cinematography, and director Gary Ross is apparently one of them. With an excessively shaky camera, lack of composition, and barely a shred of noticeable choreography, the action scenes are almost impossible to follow. To make matters worse is that in an effort to liven up the finale, the tributes find themselves being attacked by a herd of vicious creatures rendered by some of the worst cgi I've seen in a long time. It's a painfully boring and dull finale that fails to make up for the lack of suspense earlier in the film. Oh sure, every now and then there's a reasonably suspenseful scene, but nothing particularly memorable. Again, it's an unfortunate missed opportunity.

I know I'm in the minority here, but I just couldn't get into The Hunger Games. The solid performances just can't make up for a flawed script, dull action, and lack of originality. The only consolation I can take with this movie is that it's dethroning Twilight as the next big movie/book franchise... and while I didn't like The Hunger Games, it is better than Twilight. I'd say skip it... or at the very least, wait for a rental.

My Score: 2 out of 5!

My Thoughts on the 84th Academy Awards

The 84th Annual Academy Awards have come and gone. The (supposedly) best films of 2011 have received their (supposed) honours and now we have the films of 2012 to look forward to for when, this time next year, we get to do the (supposed) same song and dance again. You know, the one where the Academy mainly recognizes mostly well-made yet unchallenging cookie-cutter Oscar bait while creative and innovative genre films, quirky comedies, and blockbusters usually settle for either the technical categories, becoming cult classics, or ignored altogether... you know, supposedly.

At the risk of coming off as some self-righteous hipster movie geek who thinks of nothing but genre films and indie flicks, the last two Oscar ceremonies have been so underwhelming and forgettable. It's not that I've hated the movies that have won or been nominated. On the contrary, most have been very good films worthy of the nominations (and SOME of the wins, but that's another story). Still, the last few ceremonies have been so dull, predictable, and unambitious that it doesn't make for a very exciting night. I guess they had a few reasonable excuses this year. First off, it wasn't a particularly great year for movies. There were some highlights but overall, most of the year's films were pretty forgettable. Secondly, the Academy were caught with their pants down when producer Brett Ratner dropped out of his producer duties and took original host Eddie Murphy with him. In an effort to quickly salvage the problem, they hired veteran host Billy Crystal to take control for his ninth time all while fixing the mess of Ratner's failed try. So... to the Academy's credit, they were in a tough spot. Nonetheless, here are my thoughts on this year's Oscar ceremonies.

The Host :l
Well, I certainly don't blame the Academy for choosing Billy Crystal as the host. Especially when you consider what I wrote in the above paragraph. Not to mention that last year when they took a chance last year by choosing Anne Hathaway and James Franco... only to see it blow up in their faces. After all, after eight previous Oscar hosting duties, Crystal has become such a natural at the gig that he could host in his sleep. Only problem... it kind of looked like he was hosting in his sleep. To his credit, Crystal had a couple of funny moments, the intro video with him was fun to watch, and he's good enough at this gig to make it look easy. Only thing, it wasn't a particularly memorable hosting bit, and I doubt I'll remember much about it in after a few more days go by. Oh well, at least he did a better job than Franco and Hathaway last year... gotta appreciate the little things.

Hugo Sweeps The Technical Categories :)
Consider how every film buff or Oscar spectator was predicting a Titanic-style victory sweep for The Artist, it was nice to see a few other films, namely Hugo, pick up a most of the awards in the under-appreciated technical categories. Oh sure, it doesn't quite make up for the fact that The Artist reigned supreme in the major categories or how Drive was snubbed out of all but a measly sound editing nomination (but that's a rant for another post). Anywho, it was a pleasant surprise to see Martin Scorsese's new masterpiece take home some well deserved victories in art direction, cinematography, sound design, and visual effects. It was another nice surprise to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo get a well-earned statue for editing as well. Like I said before... gotta appreciate the little things.

The Muppets Win Best Song :)
It doesn't quite make up for the fact that The Artist won the Best Score award (but that's yet another rant for later). Nonetheless, this award makes me happy for two reasons. The first reason... because it was great to see a Muppet movie finally win an Oscar. Secondly, it means that Bret Mackenzie (Flight of the Concords) is now an Oscar winner as well. My only bitch about this award... WHY COULDN'T THEY HAVE PERFORMED THE SONGS ON STAGE??? Even if they didn't want to go all out with a huge musical number, couldn't they have at least had someone come out and sing the damn songs??? There were only two songs nominated! While we're on that, why were there only two songs nominated? How about the other Muppet songs or Star Spangled Man for Captain America??? Eeesh... nonetheless, this was still a good choice for the Oscar. Once again I must say... gotta appreciate the little things.

Emma Stone and Ben Stiller :)
Seeing Emma Stone's funny Oscar presentation with Ben Stiller was one of the few legitimately charming and funny moments from this year's ceremony. Namely because Stone's perky and natural comic timing combined with a surprisingly straight turn from Stiller played against expectations and got a few decent laughs. I've always said that Emma Stone was one of the most talented young actresses working today... I still stand by that.

The Best Picture Nominees
I was hoping to have a few more paragraphs about things I liked from the Oscars this year... but I'm having trouble thinking of any. So... let's go straight to my thoughts on the Best Picture nominees.

The Artist
The winning film! I'll cover my thoughts on it after I do the other Best Picture nominees.

The Descendants
Really liked this movie! It was nice to see it take a screenplay Oscar, but it would have been nice to see it take a few more. Even though I did like Jean Dujardin's performance in The Artist, it wasn't on the same level as Clooney's in this. Not to mention how Shailene Woodley was inexplicably snubbed out of a performance for Best Supporting actress. I'll have to write out a full review one of these days for this one.

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
I'm just going to come out with this... I HATED THIS MOVIE!!! I can't remember the last time I've been so appalled to see a movie on the Best Picture nominee list. Usually, even if I don't like a film nominated for Best Picture, I can understand or somewhat get behind the logic or reasoning of the nomination, even if I don't particularly agree with it. But Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close was one of the most pretentious, nauseating, self pandering examples of worthy subject matter turned into a God-awful mess. Oh sure, the 9/11-inspired story might have some important merits and Max Von Sydow's emotional performance prevents the film from tanking completely. None of that makes up for the main character... an annoying and thoroughly unlikable 11-year-old kid. I'll write a full review one of these days... but yeah, I was not a fan of this film.

The Help
This is the other nomination I didn't particularly care for. I wrote a full review for it a few months back if you're looking for a more detailed critique of the film's merits. Ultimately, the movie had a few pros, including some promising ideas, an excellent cast, and relevant subject matter. Unfortunately, the said execution of promising ideas was done in the rough context of the overdone "white saviour" story-arc. Any of The Help's eye-opening portrayals of racism and prejudice are downplayed to provide more development to Emma Stone's character Skeeter, an educated white woman in her early 20s, writing a book that inspires the black maids to stand up against their racist employers. Add in some generic one-note characters and glanced over depictions of important historical events, and it doesn't really work. At least The Help can fall back on the excellent performances of its cast... all of whom really are great.

Hugo
This was on my Top 10 films of the year, ranking at #3. Even though Midnight In Paris (another Best Picture nominee) ranked higher on my list, I would have actually really liked to see this one take the award. It was nice to see it sweep most of the technical awards, but that still didn't change the fact that this got snubbed out of Best Picture for a much lesser film. More than that, it's the fact that both Hugo and The Artist were intriguing homages to classic and silent-era films. Only difference, Hugo was not only more creative, but far more intriguing tribute to the respective era of filmmaking. How so? I'll have to write a review for this one soon.

Midnight In Paris
This was another one of my favorite movies of 2011, placing at #3. It had been a while since we last saw a Woody Allen film, but he came back in glorious form, writing and directing one of the most creative and entertaining romantic comedies in years. It's Woody Allen at his best, with enjoyable performances, a creative concept, witty dialogue, and intriguing insight into our nostalgia-driven society. If either this or Hugo won Best Picture, I would have been a happy film goer. At least it won an Oscar for its screenplay.

Moneyball
I have a feeling that Moneyball is forever going to be remembered as the film that received Jonah Hill an Oscar nomination. I mean no offense to Hill, I mean after all, seeing him make some great dramatic strides in his acting ability is going to help out his career immensely, and hopefully he'll keep picking out some good roles. Still, there's way more to Moneyball than just Jonah Hill's good performance. Its an interesting story based on a real event, Brad Pitt is at his best, and the technical elements are all solid. It's too bad this didn't win any of it's Oscars. Not my personal pick for Best Picture, but I could have lived with it winning if it took the prize.

The Tree Of Life
If you like your films artsy and experimental, this one is for you! For everyone else... good luck. While The Tree of Life can't help but come off as more than a bit pretentious, especially since it's message isn't quite as amazing as it likes to think it is, it's nonetheless a very interesting film. Described as a modern-day 2001, Terrance Malick's experimental portrayal of life, death, and time is certainly different... and I mean that mostly in a good way. By no means a masterpiece like Kubrick's 2001, it's nonetheless a film I recommend simply because it tries something creative and different, even if a bit slow and tedious at times. That and you get some great performances from Jessica Chastain and Brad Pitt. Take that as you will.

War Horse
2011 might just be the year of nostalgia-themed movies. The Best Picture winner was a silent film recreated, Hugo was a whimsical fantasy movie about the power of film, Midnight In Paris was a movie about our nostalgic mindsets, and War Horse is a lovingly recreated homage to cinematic epics of the 1940s... much like the movies of filmmaker John Ford. It's by no means Spielberg's best, but the top notch cinematography and technical execution, along with some solid acting, was enough for me. Check it out.

The Best Picture Winner - The Artist :l
Ugh... I never thought I would be so bummed about a film that I genuinely liked winning Best Picture. And again, let me make that clear.... I DID LIKE THE ARTIST. It's a fun and pleasant homage to a classic era of filmmaking... but that's about it. Overall, the film reeks of being good but not great (at least not that great). Oh sure, last year's winner The King's Speech wasn't my pick either, but at least that one could fall back on Colin Firth's top-notch performance. The Artist had one stand out scene where the film broke from being a simple recreation into something truly creative, but otherwise played it safe and took few chances. Is that all it takes to win Best Picture? To recreate a movie? Why haven't we given any Best Picture awards to Quentin Tarantino yet? That guy basically does the same thing... only difference is that he adds some of his own personal flair to give his recreations more artist merit. I mean, War Horse wasn't much more than a recreation of a John Ford movie, why not give that Best Picture. Again, The Artist is a good movie, but like other forgettable Best Picture winners like Shakespeare In Love, How Green Was My Valley, Chicago, or Dances With Wolves... the only thing it's going to be remembered for is being one of the Academy's weaker picks.

Overall
Ugh... I really hope the Oscars get better again soon, because they haven't been really doing it the last couple years. Mediocre picks, forgettable shows, and few surprises. Crossing my fingers for next year.

The Artist - Review

We're a day away from the 2012 Academy Awards, and if any of the rumors are true... we're in for a dull ceremony this year. I haven't posted my full thoughts on the Oscar nominees this year, but in short, I found them kind of underwhelming. Oh sure, there were a few good calls and a couple of nice surprises, but for the most part, the Academy played it safe again with predictable nominees, along with a few "what the hell?" calls while better and more deserving films were given the shaft. Right now the frontrunner for Best Picture is director Michel Hazanavicius' tribute to silent cinema, The Artist. Is it good, great, overrated, a letdown??? Let's look and find out.

As I mentioned before, The Artist is an homage to the classic silent films made in the early decades of cinema. Directed by renown French filmmaker Michel Hazanavicius and featuring a roster of talented actors including Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo, James Cromwell, and John Goodman, the film is shot in black and white with hardly any audio minus the non-diegetic soundtrack.It takes place in the year 1927. Dujardin plays George Valentin, an acclaimed silent film star at the top of his game. During this time, he meets an aspiring actress named Peppy Miller (Bejo), whom he encourages to pursue her passion. Meanwhile, the film industry makes one of it's biggest transitions, from silent cinema to talkies. Peppy Miller succeeds in the transition, quickly rising to stardom, while Valentin fails to adapt, and is promptly forgotten from the public eye. Can Valentin regain his star status or will he be doomed to obscurity as an outdated relic?

You might think that a film like The Artist would be a dream come true for classic film buffs or movie geeks like myself. And you know what, in some ways, it kind of is. To his credit, Hazanavicius' vision to recreate films of the silent era is commendable. In fact, it's loving recreation of such influential films is hard not to admire. The actors' spot-on pantomime performances evoke memories of classic Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton films, the German-Expressionist-inspired cinematography was had great visual appeal, and the background soundtrack was an inspired ensemble of themes that recreates the era's style of music while providing the appropriate mood to the tone of the respective scenes. At the very least, it's a loving recreation that evokes memories of classic films. If you're a classic movie fan, that might be all the convincing you'll need to see this.

Now, let's be reasonable here folks. No matter how much of a cinema snob or classic film buff (and I am one) you might be... you have to admit that The Artist can't help but come off as more than a little gimmicky. Listen folks... I get it. I love movies, I love classic cinema, and I understand how greatly films from the advent of cinema have affected our modern techniques and perceptions of filmmaking. BUT... simply re-enacting styles of a particular era does not a great movie make. For reasons I'll explain in the next paragraph, The Artist rarely rises above it's gimmicky concept... a well-executed gimmick I admit, but a gimmick nonetheless.

If that plot description sounds familiar to you... you're not alone. This film evokes memories of a similar film, Mel Brooks' underrated 1976 tribute to silent movies called... Silent Movie. By no means his best work, it still nonetheless demonstrated his excellent abilities as a comedic writer. His satirical references and enjoyable characters shined through in an often funny and interesting look at the film industry. It wasn't his most dynamic directorial effort, but the script worked where it needed to. I don't know if The Artist took any influence from Silent Movie, but I couldn't help but think while watching it that this concept has been done before. Hell, the story itself is basically a combination of Singin' in the Rain and A Star Is Born without the catchy musical numbers. As result, the film is often entertaining, but not particularly memorable. Nearly every plot point is by-the-book, the ending is predictable, and despite a couple of creative scenes, mostly plays it safe and takes few chances. Entertaining movie? Yes. Great movie? Not really.

I don't want to sell the movie too short. It has some legitimately funny scenes (most of which involve Valentin's dog), a few touching moments, and one particular creative nightmare sequence that gives the movie a bit of an edge. The nightmare features sound creeping into Valentin's life for the first time, and stands out as one of the film's most creative sequences. Had there been more scenes like that, or had the script delved into the psyche of the characters a bit more, this could have been something really special. Hell, I imagine if they took the script of Silent Movie and combined it with The Artist's slick style and direction... this could have been a new classic. As it is, however, The Artist earns the designation as a well made and often entertaining, though predictable, gimmicky, and mostly forgettable homage to a classic era.

I'm definitely giving The Artist a recommendation, but not a hugely enthusiastic one. It's great to look at and fun to watch, but lacks the proper script to make it truly special. The Oscar nominations it received are mostly well-earned, but the thought of this being named Best Picture this year... yeah, I'm not exactly on board for that. See it and judge for yourself.