Still Hungry? 'Catching Fire' Sates

I can't imagine there was anyone happier than myself when it was announced that Gary Ross would not be returning to film the sequels to The Hunger Games, his highly-successful adaptation of Suzanne Collins' epic young adult book series of the same name. Despite being a solid movie in its own right, Ross' vision was damaged by unnecessary shaky-cam (one of Hollywood's true evils), an uneven narrative that didn't take advantage of the excellent casting, and a failure to understand and/or retain many of the book's essential themes. Though Francis Lawrence didn't come into the franchise with experience in young adult adventure (his previous works include Constantine and Water for Elephants), fans of the novels and movie lovers overall ought not be disappointed in The Hunger Games: Catching Fire, a sequel that is superior in every way to the original.

Picking up a few months after the end of The Hunger Games, we see the PTSD-afflicted winner of the recent games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence), trying to readjust to her life in the remote, criminally poor, coal-mining District 12. But her actions in the previous Games - which saved not only her life but that of the unrequitedly-smitten Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) - have been seen as a beacon of hope by the other Districts, and rumors spread of unrest targeted at the Capital and President Snow (Donald Sutherland). Soon, the amoral dictator urges Katniss under punishment of death upon her family to do what she can to quell the masses on her and Peeta's upcoming victory tour. But when this only serves to fan the flames of revolution, Katniss and Peeta find themselves back in the Games, as Snow and new gamesmaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) add a new wrinkle, pitting former victors against one another to show that they are not immune to the power and strength of the government. The two most recent winners find themselves squaring off against seasoned killers, unsure of whom they can trust and how they can possibly survive another impossible situation.

CGI fire is much more effective this time around.

If one thing is for certain, Catching Fire definitely benefits from both the change in director and the substantially larger budget the success of the original allowed. The Hunger Games was no cheaply-made motion picture, but at times it FELT like it. What was supposed to be an epic, sprawling movie felt quite claustrophobic, limited in both scope and vision. Lawrence (no relation to the main star) succeeds in making the postapocalyptic land of Panem a visual spectacle, but also manages to capture the cultural aspects of the land as well, whereas Ross' version would simply throw different costumes out as something to distinguish characters. It also helps that Lawrence the director skews much closer to the source material, making the movie less about surviving impossible odds and more about the political landscape and the ramifications of one's actions. He shows an amazing understanding of Collins' vision of this world, and that understanding means that he does a better job of keeping in the bits from the book that are actually important. Ross, meanwhile, simplified the whole first book to the Hunger Games themselves and the love triangle between Katniss, Peeta and Gale (Liam Hemsworth, who returns). This new director does a great job taking the important parts of the source material and condensing it into a full-length motion picture, and even though clocking in over two hours for a movie that is mainly targeted to young adults is usually considered a no-no, Catching Fire never feels long thanks to a strong approach to filmmaking and a story that never feels uninteresting or trite.

The costumes possess the same vibrant flare as the original.

He is also assisted by a returning cast that has so many more interesting things to present the audience. One of The Hunger Games' biggest disappointments was that there wasn't nearly enough for its supremely talented actors to do. Catching Fire is absolutely a character-driven affair, however, and it's refreshing to see true artists given actual material with which to ply their trade. Lawrence certainly stands out, putting forth an even greater performance here than her Oscar-winning appearance in Silver Linings Playbook. Lawrence the actor is a revelation, a talent well beyond her years, and as long as she remains in the business, she'll be among the very best at any given time. She has the ability to carry every scene, sometimes without dialogue, but the biggest improvement over her performance in the original has to be her chemistry with co-star Hutcherson, another burgeoning star. Though Hutcherson's Peeta was bland before, his rising talent (not to mention some healthy character development) make for heady improvements, and after two films we're finally buying into the idea that the relationship between our two romantic leads is actually going somewhere.

She's not listening to those House at the End of the Street reviews...

And they're not alone, as Lawrence the director and screenwriters Simon Beaufoy (Salmon Fishing in the Yemen, Slumdog Millionaire) and Michael Arndt (Little Miss Sunshine and Toy Story 3, credited here as Michael deBruyn) parcel out much activity to Panem's supporting characters. Again, with such a strong cast, this should have been a no-brainer, and the creative minds don't disappoint. There are the obvious stand-outs, such as Woody Harrelson as our heroes' alcoholic, emotionally disturbed mentor, Stanley Tucci's perfectly flamboyant game show host, and Donald Sutherland's stand-in for the evil Emperor Palpatine (I especially loved how Lawrence added scenes of President Snow with his granddaughter, who absolutely adores his arch-nemesis Katniss). Some are even a little unexpected, such as Elizabeth Banks, who was strong in The Hunger Games but whose character goes through such a personal and emotional transformation that you are shocked by the strength of her performance. But Catching Fire introduces a whole slew of new characters, and strong performances come from Sam Claflin as a mysterious charmer and warrior, Jeffrey Wright as an enigmatic tech genius, and Hoffman as a wily strategist. You even have to love Lynn Cohen (Magda from Sex and the City) as a mute, elderly volunteer for the new Games. But my absolute favorite of the new entries (and I imagine for most others) has to be Jena Malone as a feisty, unapologetically abrasive tribute who drops not one, but two f-bombs (censored, of course) in a fit worthy of her character. It's thanks to these strong performances that this sequel stands above the bland, emotionless material it was forced to work with the first time around.

Well, at least hydration shouldn't be a problem.

Not that Catching Fire is a perfect movie. Acting-wise, some performances don't live up to the others. Given more to work with, Hemsworth proves he's nowhere near the talent that big brother Chris has become, remaining as dull and emotionless as he was the first time around, and exposed as a performer all the more. With this, his painful-to-the-senses work in Paranoia, and the designation of his latest film, Empire State, to direct-to-video status, we may be seeing the end of Liam Hemsworth as a viable movie star. Another disappointment was Lenny Kravitz, who charmed many in his role as clothing designer Cinna the first time around. Though his role was certainly lessened, it looks like he's frustrated just being on set. Though Kravitz has been good in the past (Precious is a good example), the fact that he's not principally an actor really becomes apparent at moments like this, when he can't disguise that he wishes he was doing something more. Finally, while Lawrence the director does add a few scenes to build the world a bit more from the books, his adaptation is sadly slavish to Collins' original novel. Much as I enjoyed reading the books, Catching Fire was NOT particularly well-written, and Lawrence maintains many of Collins' missteps, from introducing potentially game-changing characters and promptly doing nothing with them, to adjusting the rules of a situation to suit the story's purposes, rather than letting things happen organically. Because it is an adaptation, I'm not suggesting MAJOR adjustments needed to be made, but polishing the edges a bit more would have been a good idea.

They actually kinda like one another this time around!

Gary Ross' Hunger Games was a good, solid, adaptation of a young adult novel. As standards go, that's probably closer to the middle of the pack than most fans of the franchise or Suzanne Collins enthusiasts might be willing to admit. The Hunger Games: Catching Fire in comparison is a MAJOR step up, with Francis Lawrence's sequel matching the tone of the original, but improving the product in every single possible way. Catching Fire isn't just a great YA adaptation, but a great overall MOVIE, and potentially one of the year's best. Granted, it hasn't been an overall superb year for the cinema, but that shouldn't take away from the success this film makes in walking that delicate tightrope most adaptations have to execute. I'm certain most people with any interest in seeing this have already done so (November box office records, and all that), but if you're taking a wait-and-see approach to this franchise because you're comparing it mentally to other young adult titles like Twilight or Beautiful Creatures or Warm Bodies or The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones, then you're truly missing out.

Don't Tell Me the Odds

Yup, that time has finally arrived. Only two things kept me from going to the midnight release of The Hunger Games and writing my review it this past Friday. One, midnight releases, in my eyes, are a group thing. I've gone to midnight release showings by myself in the past, but there's simply no replacing the experience of that frantic conversation you have at 2 a.m. with the people who witnessed it all alongside you. That's what makes going to a midnight release so much fun, often even more than the film itself. Second, Todd had become interested in the highly-anticipated film, but as she was unable to attend a midnight release show (the downside of any typical office job) we instead saw it on Saturday. We still didn't avoid the crowds, though. In fact, I ran late getting to the theater, and so we were lucky to get good seats at all. I don't think I have to go into just how popular the teen novel trilogy, written by Suzanne Collins, has become the past few years. My day job is at a bookstore, and I estimate that every third customer the past month has been buying The Hunger games or one of its sequels, on average. There was no doubt that the film adaptation would be just as successful, and with an opening weekend of $155 million, it's the owner of the largest opening weekend for a non-sequel film, besting former leader Alice in Wonderland by a healthy margin.

One of you must die... who shall it be?

But that's not the whole story. Despite being all the rage with teens and young adults these past few years, more than a few experienced readers/movie lovers (myself included) will tell you that The Hunger Games is little more than a poorly-transcribed copy of Battle Royale, written by Japanese author Koushun Takami, which spawned a film and manga series in its own right. Certainly, there are a number of easy comparisons between the two, most notably corrupt governments enforcing their hold on the huddled masses by pitting the children of their citizens against one another in a fight to the death. To appeal to teens exclusively, however, Collins did make some changes, including a strong female lead and a love triangle for the teens to focus on, almost Twilight-like in its execution. In fact, the supernatural series has been mentioned often in comparison to the Hunger Games franchise, almost exclusively because of that romance story. That doesn't mean you can only like one if you enjoy the other (or dislike for the same reason). While Twilight held no interest for me, my reading of The Hunger Games was quick and enjoyable, and I'll certainly read the sequels before too much time has passed. I can definitely understand why teens get so excited about the series, but it makes one wonder what the result will be when what worked so well on paper gets transferred to the big screen?

"Wait... you mean we're not here for a disco dance-off?"

Seventy-four years ago, the Civil War against the Capitol of Panem ended with the government forces utterly defeating those of the twelve rebelling provinces. As retribution and a constant reminder not to rise against their leaders, the capital holds an event called the Hunger Games. In it, a male and female child between the ages of 12 and 18 is picked at random as "Tributes" from every district and brought to the city, where they are trained in combat and wilderness survival. After that, they are dropped into an arena filled with weapons and other dangers and forced to fight to the death, with the whole event televised in every district. Of twenty-four teenagers, there can only be one victor. This year, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) finds herself the female contestant for District 12, and while she is a talented hunter with a strong will, the measure of any Tribute can only be measured by what they are willing to do and sacrifice in order to survive.

Yuck it up, kids; you're all dead soon enough.

It's obvious from the start why The Hunger Games wasn't slated for a mid-summer release. Usually films released in June and July sport the kind of special effects that draw most of the attention from the director, rather than a script or acting. Just look at last year's Transformers: Dark of the Moon for a perfect example of a film that made a ton of money just for looking pretty, what I call the "Victoria's Secret" method of filmmaking. However, Lionsgate Films is an upstart film production company, without the financial resources of the big studios. They scored a coup by securing the rights to The Hunger Games (trending on a focus towards teen films), but they only spent $78 million to make this film, and to be brutally honest, it looks it. The actual visual effects are sparse, usually looking every bit the green screen or CGI abominations they are. To obscure the violence, director Gary Ross employs the evil tactic of "shaky-cam" to make sure you can't tell what the hell is happening at any given time. Note to directors: this only confuses and frustrates your audience. STOP IT. The sets feel small-scale as well, with scenes like the early ones of District 12 feeling too compact to be whole communities. However, the effects department shines when it comes to its use of makeup, which helps perfectly convey the attitudes and nature of the people who live in this universe. From the dirty coal miners of District 12 to the insane amount of opulence of the citizens of the Capitol, you really get a feel for the personalities of these areas thanks just to even the merest glance.

"Of course, I care about you, Jacob... I mean Gale."

However, it's a shame that the makeup is the best thing I have to say about this film. The overall acting is fine (and in some cases even better), but marred far too much by the trite dialogue the main actors are forced to recite. Let's face it: this was never going to be Hamlet, but I expected much more with this cast. Some of the actors are simply perfect in their roles. Liam Hemsworth doesn't get to do much but exist in the beginning, but you can easily see why he was chosen to play the strong Gale, one of Katniss's two potential love interests. Elizabeth Banks also stands out as Effie Trinket, Katniss's insufferable escort in preparation for the Games. Banks has been pretty consistent lately, and hopefully casting directors will give her more challenging roles in the future as a reward. Other solid and enjoyable performances come from Donald Sutherland as the Capitol President, Lenny Kravitz as the stylist Cinna, Stanley Tucci as a famous television personality, and Amandla Stenberg as a fellow Tribute named Rue.

Woody Harrelson; perfectly cast, imperfectly directed

But other roles were not done nearly as well, mostly due to how poorly they were written. When Woody Harrelson was cast as alcoholic former Hunger Games winner Haymitch Abernathy, it was widely accepted that this was a good call. However, the role never really fleshes out despite Harrelson's best efforts, and the result is a character that we just don't care about, or wouldn't if we hadn't read the book. Journey 2's Josh Hutcherson is fine as District 12 Tribute and love interest Peeta Mellark but doesn't really look the "strong baker's boy" part he's supposed to portray. But the most disappointing might be Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen, when all is said and done. The problem with Lawrence is not her ability but indeed what she's given for material. There's very little that makes Katniss a character worth rooting for, despite care made to make her a strong, solitary young woman. A natural hunter and used to being on her own, Katniss makes for a better contestant than she does a regular human being, and that's the character's problem; while Peeta is not as strong a combatant or survivalist, he does have the easygoing charm that people gravitate towards, making him imminently sympathetic to audiences. Not so with Katniss, who lacks anything akin to a personality despite the best efforts of Lawrence as an actress. I was honestly worried that Lawrence wouldn't live up to her Academy Award-nominated breakout in Winter's Bone after she stunk up X-Men: First Class, but it seems my fears were unfounded. Now if only Katniss Everdeen could be as well-written as she should be, and Lawrence (and the franchise) would be all set.

The new Crocodile Hunter, anyone?

Finally, there are a few more serious issues with this film. Some have to do with the film itself, the others having to do with the tale-telling of The Hunger Games in general. The ending. which wraps up much too quickly and with far too many holes in the tale left unclosed, is a disaster, and can be laid directly at the feet of Ross, who was obviously unprepared for this type of film after directing more family-friendly fare such as Seabiscuit and Pleasantville in his career. That he's already slated to direct the upcoming sequel is a head-scratcher, as he doesn't do this franchise any favors in this first installment. His attempts to escape Collins's Katniss-only narrative (arguably the book's weakest aspect) are poorly conceived and executed, the only tangible benefit being more Sutherland than I had at first expected. Finally, I had a criticism that Todd herself brought up: the whole method of using the Games to keep the Districts down simply makes no sense. If the Capitol had demanded that adults be tributes, then it makes sense, because at least that could be argued to be fair and just, even if it was morally wrong. But putting children in danger would present a whole host of side effects, from the rising risk of rebellion (what parents would do to protect their children), to drastically reducing populations (who would want to have kids to risk losing them in the games?) in areas that provide necessary resources for the Capitol. It's almost as if they make the teens compete to artificially create a story appealing to young readers/viewers, and to Hell with the cultural likelihood. Huh.

For the record, Mr. Anderson likes the ponytail look.

Despite what must seem like a scathing review (Already I can hear a crowd of fangirls outside my window, baying for blood), I actually enjoyed The Hunger Games as a decent sort of action film, despite its glaring issues. Obviously, this is no masterpiece, and I'm not sure anyone was expecting otherwise. I can at least appreciate The Hunger Games for its fantasy, as I liked The Woman in Black for its scares and Safe House for its acting, ignoring their other flaws. The only thing I can hope is that Ross and Lionsgate recognize what the problems were, and rectify them in the upcoming sequels. This was a film I really wanted to like, but sadly turns out to be just another okay 2012 release, debuting at #9 for the year. This film had a lot of potential, but lapsed thanks to an overly-chopped narrative, mediocre effects and a rabid fandom that overly-hyped it into oblivion. I expect and demand better from them in the future. If you're a fan of these books, you should too.

The Empire Strikes Back

You might recall back in November, I reviewed an independent film from Descent director Neil Marshall called Centurion. The film followed a band of lost Roman soldiers being chased from Pict tribes in what is now known as the Great Britain, the edge of the known world at the time. At the review's end, I predicted that the wide-release and extremely similar Hollywood film The Eagle, when it was to be released, would be nowhere close to the quality of Marshall's film, despite director Kevin Macdonald being a more renowned director (winning an Academy Award for his 2000 documentary One Day in September). The film not only takes places around the same time as Centurion, but also uses the fabled disappearance of Rome's Ninth Legion as its main plot device. In this, it is far from the first. In fact, the Lost Ninth has been the focus of many books and films, not the least of which is the 1954 novel The Eagle of the Ninth, on which the film I'm reviewing today is officially based.With the lack of viable film releases in recent weeks and harboring no desire to be depressed into next month (sorry, Biutiful, I'll get to you soon), I decided this last Saturday to take in the historically-inaccurate action film. I certainly did not expect much from The Eagle, but I was at least hoping it would surpass my limited expectations and make for an enjoyable if brainless activity.

Marcus's secret attack - The Smolder

The film begins with the arrival of Marcus Flavius Aquila (Channing Tatum) in Roman-occupied Britain approximately twenty years after the legion led by his father - you guessed it, the Ninth - disappeared in the wilderness of the north, never to be seen again. Since then, Emperor Hadrian ordered the building of what is known today as Hadrian's Wall, with the intent of keeping the barbaric tribes outside of Rome's control from attacking "civilized" folk. After serving briefly as a Roman Centurion, Marcus hears rumors of the lost legion's standard, a gold eagle statuette, seen north of the wall. Intent on recovering the symbol of Rome and restoring his family's honor, he heads into the unknown world with only the Scottish slave Esca (Jamie Bell) as escort. Together, they search for the item and honor, facing the dangers of Britain's northern lands every step of the way.

Yes, I'm stealing this line from Airplane: "Joey, do you like movies about gladiators?"

Kevin Macdonald made some interesting, perplexing decisions in making the film. The most obvious was his casting Americans as the conqueror Romans. Normally in film, when you have an over-lording empire, whether it be the Romans or the Sith, your average casting job in these instances calls for lots and lots of British actors. Besides the obvious talent pool you have from filming in Europe, it simply feels more authentic when your empire soldiers speak with a clipped British accent. I know that doesn't make a ton of sense, what with English not being even close to being a language at a time and Britain in fact not even being officially on the same LAND MASS as the city of Rome. But, for me at least, the British accent makes it feel more familiar and acceptable. American voices in comparison just sound so... UNREFINED. Even talented actors like those of Donald Sutherland (yes, I know he's Canadian) simply don't seem to belong in these roles, and they represent the upper echelon of acting talent. In an early scene basically spelling out the pretense of the film, Macdonald managed to secure some of the worst vocal talents this side of a Limp Bizkit concert to set up the film's tale. I mean... I GET IT. You use Americans to represent this country's history as a conquering nation, using Picts and Gauls to represent Native Americans. I can understand that just fine. What I can't forgive is the ham-handedness with which this was carried out, culminating in a first third of a film that just doesn't feel very well put together.

Yes, that will probably hurt

Another unfortunate decision was to make the film PG-13. There are numerous fights that occur through the course of the story, and if this had been a more ambitious film, it would have upped the blood and gore conspicuously absent from the film. It certainly didn't need to be as bloody as Centurion (which made a point of dismembering each representative limb at least TWICE during the length of the film) but the surprisingly bloodless battles and just-off-screen violence make The Eagle feel lifeless and dull in even these instances and practically begs for an "unrated" DVD release. There are some acts (including the murder of a small child) that would easily have knocked the film's rating up to R had it just been slightly more in the frame. This can only be seen as cowardice on the part of the filmmakers, perhaps worried that their film would not reach a prospective audience with an R rating.

What's hidden is that not one of them is wearing pants

As for historical accuracy, Macdonald had said he wanted to be as accurate as possible, but when you're dealing with a disputed legend and ancient tribes for which little is known, there's not a whole lot to work with. The best you can do is nail down the Romans, and for all intents and purposes, the director seems to at least pull that off. Of course, the only major detail they focus on - and of course they make SURE you notice it too - is the fact that the Roman helmet apparently left a distinctive (and convenient) welt under your chin. I guess I can't be too disappointed, since the film is based on a novel written for children, not any actual historical tale. Most historical analysts won't be paying much attention to this film anyway, I suspect.

Joey REALLY liked gladiator movies

The acting left a lot to be desired, though much can be attributed to a lazily-woven script rather than unambitious acting. I thought Tatum was actually much better here than than he had been in GI Joe, though any who remember that particular film know that's not saying much. At times his natural charm shines through, but at others he's still wooden and uninteresting. He's certainly got the looks to be a star; now he just needs his acting talents to rise to that same level. Jamie Bell suffers from the flaw of his first film role being the most memorable; he might likely never reach the level of success predicted for him after Billy Elliot made him an overnight sensation. Since that time he's mainly played supporting roles in big movies, and his future as a top-billed performer probably will be determined by how well his role is received in this year's Tintin movie. Still, he's the best part of this film, instilling heart into young Esca, with the audience never knowing for sure where the slave's loyalties lie. Donald Sutherland is as I have said a talented performer, but he has pretty much resorted to slumming it up in lesser films like this, chewing scenery long enough to get the story underway. I guess now that he has his official star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, he feels he can stop doing the good jobs and just go for a paycheck. Well, I guess I can't blame him for that. Mark Strong (Seriously? Seems like he's in everything lately) appears as a tribesman who knows where the Eagle is, and does a fine enough job with it. And French actor Tahar Rahim puts forth a very convincing portrayal as another tribe's prince and the film's main antagonist. His performance is possibly the most consistent in the whole movie, with the only exception being Bell's.

Apparently gift horses come in all shapes and sizes

As I stated before, I didn't have high hopes for The Eagle going in. I hate to keep comparing it to Centurion, but when Neil Marshall takes the same topic and runs with it, it just comes out BETTER on all counts. The Eagle barely stands on its own feet however, and while you can plainly see Macdonald trying to make this scrap heap of broken parts into a piece of art, it too often reverts to overly-simplistic storytelling, marginally average acting, and a poorly-written story that doesn't make you care one whit about what's happening on the screen. And don't get me started on the positively stupid ending. I'm sure I'll see worse before year's end, but since I've only seen three 2011 films, The Eagle coming in at #4 just doesn't seem to do justice to how poor I though it turned out. With March looking like a packed house of interesting titles, I'm sure this film will be out of the Top 10 before too long, I'm just not sure how long I can wait for that.

Mechanical Problems

Sometimes it doesn't take much to get me excited about seeing a particular movie. Violent, explosion-laden films are the easiest to tempt my palette, since they offer maximum excitement with minimal brain activity. I enjoy the mood-laden, intellectual film more than most, but just being able to turn your cognitive center off for a couple of hours to enjoy a show is just as much fun, and that's why The Mechanic was one of my more eagerly anticipated releases this month. A remake of the 1972 film starring Charles Bronson, this title's trailer alone guaranteed gunfights, explosions and more mature content than you could wave an AK-47 in the general direction of. Not unlike last year's The Losers or The Expendables, The Mechanic promised the kind of entertainment normal guys flock to in droves and normal women pretty much ignore altogether.

You might not like Arthur's version of "tag"

In the film Jason Statham plays Arthur Bishop, a "mechanic" or contract killer. Arthur's talents at subterfuge are so good that he can pull off a hit in a remote area without anyone knowing he was ever there. He plans every killing out for every contingency, making him among the most successful assassins in his organization. Things are going fine until his only friend and mentor Harry (Donald Sutherland) is assassinated for selling company secrets, and Arthur teams up with and trains Harry's son Steve (Ben Foster) to get revenge on the people who had Harry killed.

And don't expect him to pick up the tab, either

One of the reasons I was so enticed to see this film was that it's precisely the type of film Statham does so well. I remember first seeing him headline The Transporter to great effect, and I've enjoyed him as a performer since first seeing him in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. That's not to say he's incapable of making bad movies (the man WAS in a Uwe Boll film, after all), but a simple, action film of this caliber is the type of thing that goes right up his ally. The plot is swift-moving to keep the holes from being readily apparent, focusing almost entirely on the action when available. Character interaction goes out the door during these scenarios, unless you count people shooting one another as "interaction." The way in which the action is directed is itself hardcore and believable, with only Arthur's apparent perfect executions stretching the feasibility factor a pinch.

The "Rooftop Olympics" are underway

Statham is pretty much what you'd expect from a lead role of this kind. Arthur is played as almost emotionless when it comes to doing the tasks he's assigned, but when he's home he's a refined individual chomping at the bit to let his more emotional side forth. What works so well in this case is that Foster is across from him, playing Steve in the exact opposite formula. Steve is a passionate individual, with a mean streak (not unusual for Foster, looking at his resume) and a passion that comes out explosively during missions. For a pair of leading men, the partnership works wonders, and their scenes together are some of the best the film offers. Sutherland is a heralded performer, and for good reason, but he can't get the good roles like he used to. His role here is interesting, but several performers could have done the same job he did for the little time his character affects the audience. Once he's gone, he's barely left a presence for us to feel, and he's quickly forgotten. Tony Goldwyn does manage to stick around as Arthur's boss Dean Sanderson, but his role is mostly dry. Unlike several villains from similar 2010 titles, however, I actually got the feeling that Dean was dangerous, thanks to a hulking physique and deadpan stare. He was certainly more threatening than Jason Patric or Patrick Wilson.

The Julie Taymor stage play has been plagued by delays...

One thing that did bother me was the lack of strong female roles. I understand the film is a remake of a seventies cult hit, but the entirety of women in this film are servants, prostitutes, whores, or victims, in that exact order. There are no female assassins, no female executives for the agency, not anything resembling a powerful character throughout the film's runtime. While I'd be incorrect in stating that the film objectifies and exploits women, it would be more accurate to suggest that the filmmakers purely didn't think about them at all. THIS should be the film feminists are speaking against... but I guess the lack of award nominations lets it pass.

No, not THE bomb... just a bomb

The action is non-stop, and while the annoying close-up shots mar the on-screen violence at points, on a whole it's better done than your average film of the like. For what faults it has, that's what The Mechanic does well. It might not be as competent as it's originator, but what it does well it does competently and without mistakes. That's not enough to propel it to the top of the heap, however; The Mechanic comes in at #2 for the year. It probably won't be among this year's best, but it can safely be assumed it won't be among the worst either.