The Hunger Games 2012

The Hunger Games 2012

My mission with this film review blog is to bring to light the strange, the underground, the foreign, and the forgotten movies. I try not to review new or really hot movies despite catching most of the big flicks while they are still in theaters.  The Hunger Games was my most anticipated movie of 2012 (well maybe the new Total Recall ...) and it turned out to be a positive experience so I can't help giving my opinion.  I have been excited about The Hunger Games for a long time with my excitement gaining momentum at every cast announcement.  Then I caught an CNBC interview with the head of Lionsgate (the production company) talking about how he was excited for the movie and thought it was going to be great, but that it was a big gamble.  With a budget around $75 million it couldn't compete with other big budget, big name and effects heavy book adaptations like the Harry Potter series (Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince for instance had a budget around $250 million).  Turning the books into a trilogy was put on hold by Lionsgate until they knew if The Hunger Games was going to be a loss or a hit. It had a reasonable advertising budget and didn't pick up a lot of early news coverage, but as it got close to release the world wide anticipation grew into a frothing frenzy.  The Hunger Games opening weekend broke some box office records so we will be getting the sequels, but does it live up to the hype?

First of all I am a fan of the books (insert insults for reading adolescent girl books here!).  As a fan of the books the movie was a great success.  I found it moving, basically well acted for a teen love story, and mostly true to the plot and characters.  For those that aren't familiar with the source material I think it would be a little confusing, particularly a few of the relationships and characters that are explored more in the later novels such as President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland.  The movie basically broke the story into two acts.  The plot moved along, but most of the character development happens in the first half.  This leaves the second half to be mostly an exciting set of action sequences.  Dystopian science fiction movies like this require a lot of exposition and using the first half to explain everything worked but I think the movie could have been paced better with more emphasis on the games themselves with a voice over to do exposition.  This would also give us more insight into the main character Katniss, played well by Jennifer Lawrence from last year's X-Men First Class.  This is one example of the ways this film fell apart on the directing and technical side.

The Hunger Games falls well short of being a great movie.  It had mediocre-to-bad digital effects shots that looked like painted backgrounds, a shaky camera, and noticeable continuity errors.  The camera work, cinematography was by the normally great Tom Stern, in this film took shaky hand cam work to a new level.  The first ten minutes were nearly unwatchable and all the most important fight scenes were a series of too close, shaky shots that were edited together with too many quick cuts.  This gives the fights a sense of chaos and probably allowed them to sneak some violence into the PG-13 rating, but it just failed.  Failed to be coherent, failed to be beautiful, failed to be interesting, and most of all failed by making some of my strongest stomached friends ill.  The script, written by the director Gary Ross and the novel author Suzanne Collins, felt close to the book, but directing choices such as not really developing the relationship between Katniss and Gale or not using voice over kept the film version from having the impact and social commentary of the book.  The acting was good enough for an adolescent action film with a few standouts such as Woody Harrelson personifying Haymitch, Stanley Tucci bringing to life the flamboyant Ceasar Flickerman, and Elizabeth Banks (yes from Zack & Miri Make a Porno 2008) pulling off the eccentric Effie Trinket.

So all in all I enjoyed the movie a lot.  During one scene I even welled up a tear, but like a lot of this film I can't figure out if the film version was that moving or if my attachment to the source material was overwhelming me.  I am not sure if this film will have much pop for those outside its target audience that haven't read the books, but it is good enough that parents that go with their teens should enjoy it also.  I would recommend this film to fans of the book series and to anyone looking for a good way to bond with their teenager.

Bunraku 2010

Bunraku 2010

Bunraku is a traditional form of Japanese puppet theater, but I know very little about it so I will instead discuss the 2010 live action film Bunraku.  Bunraku is a revenge and violence tale that draws heavily on Japanese traditions such as Kabuki theater, Bunraku and samurai, but it also blends in heavy doses of the Western genre and modern revenge flicks.  This is a truly stylish film that is fun and light hearted, playing around within the tropes and ideas common to the genres and histories it both parodies and celebrates.  It delivers this style through fantastic fight scenes, creative green screen and CG effects, music, sound, direction and narration, but despite all the spectacles throughout the film it is somehow a little dry and uninteresting.  Style to me can make up for flaws bigger than wooden acting and poor pacing and this film had style enough to overcome a plot that was written in crayon by a kid wearing a helmet.  Every aspect of this film draws in references from film, video games (a top down GTA scenes and numbered enemies), comics (Spiderman-ish pop-up book, comic dialogue boxes for subtitled sections) and pop culture.  These can be distracting (video game dings), but overall are fun and referential humor is a win in my book.  The creative mish-mash of genres and styles comes together to create a feeling of a cross between a stage production of a Western and a puppet version of a traditional samurai film. 

The director, Guy Moshe, deserves the credit for the successes in this film.  Drawing together the desperate styles had to be done by a true artist. The film has some writing missteps, but it mostly falls down due to the acting. The narrator  (apparently stylistically straight out of Bunraku theater), voiced by Mike Patton,  is heavy handed and over used despite sounding awesome. The acting leaves a lot to be desired, even by some of the actors that originally drew me to the film such as Woody Harrelson and Demi Moore.  I can't bring myself to like Josh Hartnett despite him doing great in this film and several minor characters seemed to be miscast.  Other actors saved the film from becoming an artist, stylish bore.  Ron Perlman as the antagonist woodcutter Nicola was great.  Perlman really nails roles where he needs to be a likeable bad guy (see him in Sons of Anarchy he makes the show).  The androgynous Japanese actor Gackt plays the second protagonist Yoshi spectacularly.  His acting, makeup, and costuming bring to life the Japanese aesthetics.  Killer Number Two (I mentioned numbered enemies right?), Kevin McKidd of Grey's Anatomy fame, was a great cold, analytica bad guy who reminded me of the awesome antagonist the Swede from AMC's Hell on Wheels.

The technical side of the film shocked the film to life with great effects, style in spades and cool sound, but the best technical parts of the film where without a doubt the crazy, violent and fun fights.  The fight scenes throughout the film that mix of stylized western gang fights (like Gangs of New York), violent fights of modern revenge flicks (Kill Bill), stand-offs from Spaghetti Westerns (Dollars Trilogy), stylized shadow fights from Asian theater, puppet violence and duels straight out of Samurai films (Yojimbo).  The beautiful and stylized fights come right out of the gate with digital paper cut-outs showing warfare and downfall of man.  Again it was stylish, fun, and comical if a bit dry.  One set of simultaneous fights played well with the ideas of shadow theater, tying the two fights together by showing sections of the action purely or partially through shillouettes and shadows, but these clips were quick and underutilized.  Another fight during a prison break is reference to side scrolling video games.  A bare knuckles fight towards the end of the movie was a stunning fight with tremendous use of the soundtrack and sound effects.

The multidimensional and layered fights combining comic scenes, beauty, and violence are the core of film.  The writing and acting try to justify the collection of fight scenes, but fail to prop it up completely.  On the other hand the style and art direction manage to hold up this crazy, make shift, CG paper construction of a film despite the movie's flimsy substance.  I am not sure how highly I can recommend this film as it might have a niche audience and despite very competent construction of the film it lacks too much in the pacing and story to keep it interesting.  I fear despite my strong attraction to the film most audiences will find it a simple, if stylish, bit of popcorn spectacle.  I would recommend Bunraku to fans of Samurai Westerns and fans of Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie.

Repo! The Genetic Opera 2008

Repo! The Genetic Opera 2008

First of all I am going to keep this short.  I was on a quest tonight to watch two films with very similar subject matter (Repo! The Genetic Opera and Repo Men) so that I could do some critical thinking comparing the two, but I got stopped with shear wonder after watching Repo!.  It deserves a bit of a write up of its own instead of being used as a foil to compare and contrast another more popular film.  This movie fits into a rare class of albums and musicals lumped together as 'Rock Operas' or 'Rock Musicals'.  The genre is best known for albums like Tommy by The Who, Pink Floyd's film/album The Wall, or, to a casual audience, the puppet rock opera created by Segal's character during the film Forgetting Sarah Marshall.  One could argue for the inclusion of other off-beat modern musicals like cult classic Rocky Horror Picture Show or the super awesome, super villain musical Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.  The music in the film is great, straddling the line between a musical and rock concert and one scene even features Joan Jett playing guitar in the background.

Repo! really strikes a cord of the wonder, awe, and fun of my first time watching Rocky Horror, but it is also a much darker tale with strong similarities to slasher-porn movies like Saw.  The connection to the Saw series is unmistakable as Repo! was directed by the writer/director of Saw II.  Darren Lynn Bousman brought his experience from directing three movies in the Saw franchise to Repo! giving it a chilling, grotesque quality.  The horror aspect didn't really appeal to me, but combined with the music it was so surreal that some of the more horrific scenes were more comical than gag inducing. The acting was sub-par for much of the cast, but their singing was generally good overshadowing the cheesy musical theater acting.  The cast includes the likes of Paris Hilton, Bill Moseley, Paul Sorvino, and stars the cute Alexa Vega.  A character and personality that steals every scene is the Graverobber played by Terrance Zdunich who also co-wrote the script.  Technically the film did great creating a dark, larger-than-life world, but at times the sets looked more like a stage set than a movie set. 

Overall the film is only going to appeal to a niche audience.  Within that niche though it has become a cult classic and I believe like Rocky Horror and Clerks will become more popular as the myths surrounding it grow.  This film does need a disclaimer that it is a slasher-horror movie and it is a musical.  One or the other will prevent most people from enjoying it, but I hope that those with an open mind give it a shot.  I would recommend this film to fans looking for the lighter side of slashers and anyone who needs a little more rock opera in their life.

Gamer 2009

Gamer 2009

Well, I have some interesting news for my friends. Well over a year ago when Gamer came out my friends all got together without me and watched it. Afterwords they told me about how much they liked it. I said that I wasn't sure I wanted to watch it after seeing the previews because the plot was entirely too obvious and it really seemed to offend them.  The mixed news is that I was wrong, and that I was also entirely right. It is a fun movie worth seeing if you like to shut your brain off and see some fast paced action making it much more entertaining than I predicted, but I did nail the plot almost exactly. The action comes at you non-stop throughout the film and the tricks used in the editing room that give this movie a choppy feel makes even the tender moments seem like they are flashing by at a high frame rate. This keeps the audience too drawn in to this thrill ride to see the glaring holes in the plot and the one dimensional caricatures that the majority of the cast portrays.

I also got into it with one of friends over Gerard Butler's acting talent. I still am not sold he is a good actor (The Bounty Hunter counts as serious evidence against his talents), but he did do well with the absolute pile of mule sized dookey that was the storyline and writing for Gamer. This is a story that has been done before in various ways from Death Race and its ilk to the 1994 flick No Escape (a popcorn show I always liked despite it having similar plot holes). It clearly draws a lot of storyline and ideas from the classic 1987 Arnie Sci-Fi action piece The Running Man. Just from the one preview I witnessed, many basic plot devices from The Running Man are clear and obvious. The grueling TV show and the modern arena where convicts fight for their freedom. The obviously 'good' protagonist being wrongly convicted and only joining the games because someone he cares about needs him. The inevitable escape and retribution against the creator of the games. The overblown social commentary. The only thing I got really wrong is that the 'player', Logan Lerman, that controls Butler's character Kable is not part of Kable's wholly foreseeable revenge pattern. In the only twist I didn't see, the smug teenage player turns out to be neither a particularly important part of the story nor an antagonist. 

Butler and Lerman were the only actors that got roles with real depth and they both created believable characters within a movie that actively tried to undermine their efforts. The campy, mono-dimensional characters played by the rest of the troop created a fun atmosphere that almost got me laughing at multiple parts, but the light hearted play (at one point a dance scene with Michael C. Hall and his 'puppets') runs contradictory to the jarring violence and moral weight of the scenes with Butler. The lack of seriousness throughout the supporting characters also made the dark atmosphere of a disturbing dystopian future into an oversimplified world similar to Idiocracy.  The cheesy cameo-fest includes some of the best current TV actors like Michael C. Hall (Dexter), Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer), Alison Lohman (Pasadena), Maggie Lawson and James Roday (Psych), and Sam Witwer (Being Human US Version). A few great supporting actors show up also such as John Leguizamo (Empire, Ice Age) and Terry Crews (Expendables, Idiocracy) plays a villain.  Also the film drags in Ludacris to fill the rapper cameo quota. They were all fun to watch and picking out the duo from Psych got a genuine chuckle out of me, but the cameos seemed forced. I would guess that they were all told to ham it up by the director so I can't really fault the actors, but generally it was bad sitcom TV level acting.

Which brings me around to the directing. It was directed and written by the duo Neveldine and Taylor who worked together as writer-directors on the two Crank movies and wrote the script for the doomed graphic novel film Jonah Hex. Like both Crank films, they capture a lot of great action in short fight scenes and keep a thrilling pace going from the opening to the credits. There are great music choices that keep the excitement upbeat and rarely does the audience have wait between action scenes. They are good action directors, but outside the action shot the film falls short. Since much of the film takes place in an altered reality state they chose to have frequent glitches or frame drops which look good, but feels totally out of place in a technologically advanced future. It is much closer to glitchy internet games from five or more years ago than a cool technical trick from the near future. The purpose of these graphical twitches is to make the altered reality scenes obvious, but they remind me of The Ring (2002) more than Halo. Much of the gore in the film is so over the top it takes on a Romero-esque quality. The story and characters were poorly written and without Butler or a similar ultra-popular action star this movie would be relegated to a cheesy B action/Sci-Fi movie that would seem more at home in the early 1990s with Johnny Mnemonic (1995). With Butler the action scenes and crazy fun pace cover up most of the bad points listed above, but the film still came off too light-hearted for the subject matter.

This film does take on some serious social commentary buried within the 90 some odd minutes of heart pumping action. It is set in a future where a recluse billionaire can buy out the prison system to create a computer game with human avatars. In the world people also play a Second Life style simulation game to act out their fantasies. Neveldine and Taylor decide to cast gamers in a very unfavorable light. The gamers shown in the film are creepy looking old men, a morbidly obese man on a powerscooter, and a rich white teenager all obsessed with sex and violence. I suppose stereotypes do frequently have a kernel of truth, but the directors seem to have actively tried to alienate and insult gamers despite the film blatantly ripping off gamer culture. It also had a great advertising campaign targeting gamers before its launch. Did they intend to alienate and offend their target audience? That would be like making a children's movie where all you show is kids from the special education room blowing snot bubbles and billing it as a movie about genius children made for genius children by a pair of genius children. If Hollywood's concept of gamers is overweight losers they must really dislike one of their core demographics. As a gamer myself I try to disprove these stereotypes by being social and hygienic and it offends me to see these stereotypes reinforced for the sake of a few chuckles. Those chuckles also undermine the films credibility for the social commentary it is obviously desperate to make.

This is violent gory entertainment that is a warning about how the stupid public loves violent gory television which, like its portrayal of gamers, condescends to its own audience. While I find large portions of the core concepts, stereotypes and ideas to be completely offensive, the execution of this fast paced dystopian action flick did entertain. I enjoyed my time watching it and think that anyone who liked Crank, The Running Man, or movies like The Fast and the Furious will get a great kick out of the non-stop action just like I did. While I doubt I could highly recommend this film to anyone, I would recommend it to people looking for some fast paced fun on a Friday night, just remember to check your brain at the door.

P.S.  - I think I just pissed off half of my friends with this reviews... To again placate them I was entertained! *Giant Sad Panda Face*  

P.P.S - After ranting to my roommate about the plot holes in the film, I feel I must also add "Sweet, kind, odorous butt stench" to my list of ways to insult things.

Battle: Los Angeles 2011

Battle: Los Angeles 2011

I have to apologize about taking a few weeks off between reviews.  I went to visit my brother down in Arizona and despite watching movies before I left and while I was down there I never got around to writing.  So I have a couple of movies to review so the next few reviews should come quick, but they will probably be shorter.

The one I want to get to first is the biggest blockbuster hit, Battle: Los Angeles.  This movie had everything that gets me excited about Science Fiction.  It had the big budget special effects, a cast that isn't super famous (I find big named stars often distract in Sci-Fi and Fantasy films), was set in the near future, and had a gritty war movie feel.  Frequently this movie reminded me more of Black Hawk Down (2001) than Well's War of the Worlds with its up close look at a group of soldiers in an extreme situation.  The aliens were a great mix of unknowable yet familiar.  Their small squad tactics mimicked the tactics being used by the marines, but their armaments and bodies remained utterly foreign. The great antagonists combined with the gritty style made me forget at times that I was essentially watching special effects eye candy disguised as Apocalypse Now (1971).

Now to dig into a review before I get too long winded again.  The aliens were great, but so were the protagonists.  The main squad of soldiers were great despite some horrible dialogue writing.  Notables include everyone's favorite tough chick Michelle Rodriguez (Avatar, Resident Evil) doing her usual hard-ass hottie and the reliable Aaron Eckhart (The Dark Knight, Thank You For Smoking) overcoming some horrible writing to deliver a tough leader as Sergeant Nantz.  One actress could have phoned it in she was so bad.  This could also be a writing problem, but Bridget Moynahan was forgettable at best.

The technical aspects of the film shined really bright despite the B movie scripting and dialogue.  Overall the story was good, but not great and the dialogue was cheesier than another Mel Gibson war epic.  The special effects were spectacular despite the drama surrounding the films effects house Hydraulx (were sued because they made Skyline at the same time which is very similar film).  Music and foley were top notch. The director, of course with the backers and producers, really turned a B movie Sci-Fi script into a high budget war movie.  The camera work was good, but went for a deliberate hand held or documentary style that isn't original enough to stand out after movies like Cloverfield (2008).

Battle: Los Angeles has been a fairly successful movie, but critics tore it up.  It also wasn't the super box office smash that some early press expected when comparing it to other gritty Sci-Fi films like District 9.  The film doesn't really hold water to great war movies like Black Hawk Down or The Thin Red Line (1998) and isn't nearly as good as recent Science Fiction masterpieces like District 9 and Avatar, but it is a great popcorn action flick.  Overall the bad writing and deliberate camp detract from what is otherwise a serious action movie, but the fast paced action did keep me watching with enthusiasm.  I would recommend this movie only for Sci-Fi fans and those wanting a fun action movie with all the campy nature of an 80s film.

Paul 2011

Paul 2011

Paul was a movie I had been looking forward to for some time.  It stars the awesome comedy duo Nick Frost and Simon Pegg (Shaun of the Dead 2004, Hot Fuzz 2007, and the Britcom about slackers Spaced).  They are a comedy set that has turned out cult classic comedies based on a tried recipe of geek humor and pop culture references.  I read a few interviews with the pair leading up to the release of Paul and I had the impression they were attempting a less referential style with a more mainstream appeal.  The inclusion of American mainstream comedy actor Seth Rogen (Pineapple Express 2008, Knocked Up 2007, The 40 Year Old Virgin 2005) as the voice of Paul reinforced that idea.  I wondered how a movie that starts with two British blokes going to Comic-Con would have mass appeal, but geek culture has been becoming the dominant sub-40-year-old culture for years. Because I had this bias going into Paul, I got a great surprise.  Pegg and Frost continued using their famous recipe of referencing geek culture, alien/UFO lore, and occasionally obscure references.  In order to make a movie with broader appeal they added more popular culture references and allowed the humor to dwell mostly on more famous sci-fi using multiple references to the Star Wars series and the classic UFO film Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977).  This should allow the movie to be accessible to a larger audience, but may sacrifice the cult following of Pegg and Frost's earlier works.

The comedy duo of Nick Frost and Simon Pegg really forms the core of this movie and their fans should feel right at home.  The pair brings in their usual chemistry and fall into their usual roles with Pegg going after a girl and Frost having a bordering on obsession friendship with Pegg.  The chemistry works great, but is not exceptional. Rogen plays the voice of the alien Paul.  He turns in a good performance and delivers his lines with good comedic timing, but somehow the big stoner voice of Rogen never really jived with the tiny surfer style CGI alien on screen.  I think this was more of a casting problem, but it never really detracts from this mostly silly adventure.

In this film the love interest is played by cute and funny Kristen Wiig (best known from SNL, but recently did well in the deliberately bad MacGruber in 2010).  Her character starts as a religious person and this is used to set up multiple gags on evolution/creationism and hardcore hillbilly Christianity.  Her character's main role is to set up a romantic appeal for the movie, but she delivers the best performance of the reality shattering truth that aliens exist and are talking to you.  Despite fainting gags the rest of the cast seem to mostly take Paul in stride, but Wiig's character genuinely struggles with the truth that her religion is false and everything she knows is being shaken up including her morality and relationship to her crazy hillbilly dad.  Wiig's character and her story should upset many religious people and I suggest keeping your more religious friends and family away from this film or you might end up getting an earful.  Her acting is the most notable in the film, but this is a fun comedy and the cast's acting is pretty bad throughout.

Pegg and Frost's previous greats were all with Director Edgar Wright who worked with them on Spaced, Shaun, and Hot Fuzz.  I was worried about Wright not being the director on Paul, but Director Greg Mottola does nearly as well.  The effects, music, and shots from this film don't stand out and lack some of crazy ideas from earlier Pegg and Frost films, but they all work in the film and have good comedic elements.

I have to say that I did not enjoy this film as much as Shaun of the Dead, but it was close to on par with Hot Fuzz.  Paul worked a lot better for me than Pegg's work without partner Frost such as Run, Fatboy, Run (2007).  Overall I think the movie was a great sci-fi comedy and contained such great pop culture references and cameos that most people should find a good laugh.  I would recommend this movie to fans of Frost and Pegg or people who like geek reference comedies like Fanboys (2008).

Trailers, Photos, Etc

The Black Hole 1979

The Black Hole 1979

Ah... movie nostalgia... What a wonderful feeling.  Since this is hopefully just a trip down memory lane for any proper sci-fi geek or child of the 80s, I will keep this review short and sweet.  The Black Hole directed by Gary Nelson came out in 1979, before I was born by the way, and was a staple Disney movie for me and most of the TV audience throughout the 1980s and early 90s.  It is now considered a science fiction classic and had some notable talent.  The Director Gary Nelson is most known for countless TV movies and his work on Disney movies and series.  I suppose he put on a good show with fun effects back when the film was new, but I don't think the directing stands out in any significant way.  The Director of Photography Frank Phillips was another Disney regular in the 1970s and he pulled some fun tricks with floating robots, but his best DP credit still has to be the 1971 childrens' classic Bedknobs and Broomsticks.  The score by John Barry is pure space gold, you might know him as the kinda creator of the James Bond theme song!

On the other hand, there are some good performances by some famous  actors.  The villain in the story Dr. Reinhardt, Maximilian Schell a famous German actor, delivers a really creepy performance as a scientist totally gone bonkers.  The biggest star from my childhood memory has to be the man who played Norman Bates, Anthony Perkins, coming out as a good guy.  He plays a scientist who is dead set on finding life or the next big discovery, but in the end sacrifices himself to save his colleague.

Yet in my view the stars of this movie have always been the robots.  These lovable characters are well voice acted, funny, and have more personality than the rest of the cast combined.  I think the two main 'bots were voiced by Slim Pickens and Roddy McDowell, but they weren't credited in my bluray copy so I am basing that on internet facts.  Either way Vincent and Bob make The Black Hole a classic gem.

If you like sci-fi and haven't seen The Black Hole then you totally were born in the 1990s!  Compared to today's computer graphically aided masterpieces The Black Hole will seem dated and cheesy, but that is also what makes it a classic.  The shootouts are a joke, but the characters are funny as heck.  Lastly, a few of the scenes of the spaceships viewed from space are still gorgeous to this day, but that can't quite rescue some of the interior settings.  I would recommend this movie to fans of classic science fiction movies or anyone who wants to do a Mystery Science Theater reenactment in their living room.