These are the Days of an X-Men Renaissance

It's actually kind of amazing how much information we got about X-Men: Days of Future Past between when its production was announced in May 2012, and now. Of course, we learned the title, which immediately heralded back to the classic X-Men comic book storyline of the same name. We were disappointed that X-Men First Class director Matthew Vaughn was leaving the project to focus on other work, but then excited again when we found out that Bryan Singer - who had directed the first two wonderful movies - was returning to direct the newest installment of the franchise he helped build. We learned that it would combine the casts of both pre-existing X-Men storylines, with Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan playing alongside their younger character counterparts of James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender. We learned that Hugh "Wolverine" Jackman would once again be the face of the series. Empire magazine published their special issue about the film with 25 collectible covers. We were given what seemed like half a dozen full-length trailers, countless promotional clips and set pictures, and the sight of speedy newcomer mutant Quicksilver (Evan Peters) eating an X-tra Bacon, Egg & Cheese biscuit in a Carl's Jr. ad (yeah, that was kind of stupid). We also got some bad or potentially bad news, ranging from the complete cutting of fan favorite Rogue (Anna Paquin, whom the trailers had initially featured) to the current sexual assault allegations leveled against Singer. Point being, there was an almost insane amount of hype surrounding this entry to the X-Men film franchise, almost too much to actually hope the final product would live up to expectations. Well guess what? It lives up to expectations. And in some ways, it surpasses them.

Just promise me there'll be no singing.

Days of Future Past takes place within two disparate timelines. In a chaotic, post-apocalyptic future, Professor Xavier and Magneto (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellan) lead a small band of mutants trying to avoid extermination at the hands of mutant-hunting Sentinels, robots built during the time of Xavier and Magneto's youth. Through one of the group's ability to send people backwards in time (because, you know, the story demands it), de-facto tough guy Wolverine's mind is sent back in time to his younger body to prevent the actions that have brought about the chaotic world in which our heroes live. When he wakes up in 1973, he must unite the two young mutant leaders, now at odds with one another, into a team that can halt the future war on mutant-kind before it ever starts.

... I'm sorry, was I saying something?

The best thing about Days of Future Past is that it combines the greatest elements of the X-Men films. For the old-school fans, you have the return of several classic franchise actors, including Halle Berry (Storm), Shawn Ashmore (Iceman), and Ellen Page (Kitty Pryde), not to mention Stewart and McKellan. For fans of the most recent First Class kinda-reboot, you have the the unique (for a superhero film) 1970's atmosphere, the best from the cast with McAvoy, Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence and Nicholas Hoult, and the main focus of the narrative. And of course, there's Jackman in the lead role once again, not that the casting agent would let you forget. Singer melds these disparate parts fairly well, mixing timelines and art styles with precision, flipping from young Xavier's private plane in one scene to Sentinels battering down a door in the future, and the transition works without any loss of cohesion. The fact is, if you liked ANYTHING from the previous X-movies, you'll find plenty to enjoy here.

One of these things is not like the others...

But Singer doesn't just rely on combining nostalgic elements when it comes to building his latest effort, and his newest additions make for a nice compliment to the preexisting franchise. Games of Thrones' Peter Dinklage is perfectly at home as an adaptation of classic X-Men villain Bolivar Trask, putting an appropriate face to the public discrimination and fear that has long been the dividing line the team from the likes of the Avengers or the Fantastic Four. And even Evan Peters' take on Quicksilver is surprisingly effective. Yes, that Carl's Jr. commercial was an incredibly poor marketing idea, and at first glance his costume is just plain silly. But when Singer actually uses the character in the context of the movie (in a slow-motion action sequence set to Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle"), it's such a thrill ride that you wish it wouldn't end. Sadly, the character practically disappears after this, but hopefully he'll make a re-appearance further down the line, if the directors can capture the same level of fun and excitement that Singer nailed in that one scene.

Fifty bucks on him gutting the hippie!

And that actually sums Days of Future Past up quite nicely; it's fun, and it's exciting. People haven't been enamored with this particular superhero franchise of late, from the spottiness of the Wolverine movies to the bad script elements of First Class to the plain awfulness that was X-Men: The Last Stand. But thankfully Days of Future Past rises above those faults. The cast is perfect - even Lawrence finally seems comfortable sitting in the bright blue skin of pseudo-villain Mystique after conquering just about every other role she's been handed - and the script is not just well written, but includes more than a few inside jokes for the lifelong comic book fans. In fact, that the story was based on such a well-known comic book storyline is a main reason this new entry was hyped so heavily, and so effectively. And yet this isn't just a pandering adaption, or at least if it is, it's hidden well enough to not be immediately insulting to those paying for tickets. Beyond that, the visuals are stunning, the dialogue and character development are amazing, and - especially important when Amazing Spider-Man 2 had so many jarring, bloated bits - it doesn't feel like too much has been crammed in to make the movie unwatchable. Instead, just the right balance means that you'll be riveted to your seat for the entire 131 minutes.

They act like they've never seen a man in purple armor and a cape before... oh, wait...

In closing, I think it's safe to say that after years of mediocrity and unfulfilled potential, the X-Men franchise is back on its feet and on a path to glory with Days of Future Past. Sure, the story has a few hiccups, some parts kind of rely on the audience remembering the plots and unseen characters of the previous films, and the ending isn't particularly clear how the universe will play out in future films. But despite the weariness the hype might have on your decision whether or not to see this in the theater, let me assure you that this is a superhero movie well worth a trip to your theater, even if you're not a fan of the genre. It might be one of the best of its kind in recent years, and there's no better way to celebrate that than seeing it on the big screen.

David O's Hustlin'

Oh, no, we're starting to overrate David O. Russell!

Don't get me wrong, I think Russell has put together a solid career, especially these past few years. The Fighter is one of my favorite modern sports movies, and while I contend that the mental health topic was just a smokescreen for an otherwise-predictable romantic comedy in Silver Linings Playbook, it was still a well-made, exceptionally-acted motion picture. And so when this man pumps out a movie, it's fairly easy to drum up audiences, even when your trailers reveal none of the plot and thrive on catchy pop tunes. He's gotten to that pedestal that all directors hope to achieve, where their name holds more allure than many of the all-star cast that people are actually going to be staring at for over two hours. And all in all, he's deserved it, getting excellent performances from talented casts and piecing together a strong filmography. So it's a surprise to no-one that American Hustle has gotten so much praise from critics, and that audiences have been solidly filling theaters to see it. There's just one problem... the movie's not really all that great.

If you grew up in the 80's, you knew this guy.

The movie is a fictionalized retelling of the FBI's ABSCAM investigation that saw several US politicians convicted of corruption charges from the late 70's to the early 80's, saying that "Some of this actually happened" but also changing all the names and details involved. So right off the bat we have a problem. Yes, last year we had an historical drama that changed many a detail for the purpose of telling a good story in Argo. But while Ben Affleck might have fudged a few lines in adapting his Best Picture winner, he was still determined to tell stories about real people faced with impossible odds. It didn't matter that not everything in the movie matched up with its real world counterpart, because at the end of the day Affleck was representing these folks as truly as he knew how. Russell meanwhile uses such an important moment in US history as ABSCAM as a mere baseline for his own simple morality play (which he rewrote from a screenplay by The International's Eric Singer), and doesn't really seem care about the event's historical significance, or how it relates to the story he wants to tell.

Okay, guys, you can play patty-cake later.

The film also stutters through an opening act told almost entirely in voice-over monologues. Even if you can accept this clear breach of "show but don't tell" (at which movies of this level are SUPPOSED to excel) as a quick and easy method of introducing our leads, there's no real excuse for not settling on one voice; the narration starts from the perspective of small-time conman Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale), which makes sense, because he's the protagonist of the story. But Russell quietly ushers in a change by adding in the disembodied voice of Amy Adams (playing Irving's business partner and mistress Sydney Prosser) for no discernible reason other than to make fun of the main character's comb-over. What's painful is that the scenes are actually so well-shot, and these actors so evocative despite lacking dialogue, that the scenes really do speak for themselves, making the voice-overs completely unnecessary. It's almost as if the director dumbed-down these scenes in an attempt to create a more audience-friendly atmosphere. That's not something you want to see from a man who was never concerned with mainstream success in the past.

Just... wow.

Fortunately, most of the succeeding acts are much better compiled, as they focuses on what makes David O. Russell movies so revered: the interplay between characters. The relationships between each pair of personalities are so well-constructed and believable that they MAKE American Hustle as entertaining as it is. For instance, many sides of Irving can be seen through his interactions with others, from his tempered fury for FBI handler Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper), to the genuine (and conflicted) friendship he develops with well-meaning corrupt politician Carmine Polito (Jeremy Renner), to his poisonous relationship with young wife Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence). Each character has a litany of such relationships to one another, and one of the film's true pleasures comes from seeing those emotional turmoils move the story forward from scene to scene. The actors have great chemistry, and it ups the payoff that is delivered, even when their actions are quite so noble as to be respected in that way.

There's a fetish for that.

It's a shame that the individual performances couldn't have been more consistent. Now, Bale is absolutely great, carrying the movie with an unusual combination of charm, honesty and a little bit of sleaziness to sell the con man angle. He's obviously deeply invested in this character, and it shows, as he proves once again to be among the best actors in Hollywood today. But even he is upstaged by his ladies, American Hustle's true stars. Adams has a rich, meaty role that she wholeheartedly throws herself into. Her sensual performance and easy chemistry with her costars makes for a lot of fun to watch, and she steals about half the scenes in the flick. Most of the others are stolen by Lawrence, who puts on one of the year's best performances despite being given material similar to Kat Dennings in Thor: The Dark World. Despite a role that feels largely written for laughs, Lawrence handily floors the audience with excellent comedic timing, an intense, believable on-screen presence, and more sheer talent than most career artists achieve in their lifetime. Both of these women deserve Oscar nods this year, despite the crowded Supporting Actress field; there might be a riot if even one of them fails to garner a nomination.

These scenes - and these ladies - are out of this world.

I just wish more of the cast had stepped up as those three. Cooper's FBI agent is so over the top, though to be fair he certainly was written that way, what with the completely forced love triangle and the prototypical interfering mother and a feud with his boss that in the real world would never be tolerated. But even then Cooper goes way over the top, over-exaggerating every syllable and becoming even more of a caricature. Worse off is Renner, whose script choices have not allowed him to approach the potential he showed in The Hurt Locker and The Town. Here he's barely used, and when he is the dialogue is so rote as to work against him. And yes, I know many of the scenes were ad-libbed, but those moments were infinitely better than those that were plainly scripted. Beyond the big five are a cavalcade of side characters, one-note parts given WAY too much material to justify their collective presence while wasting the considerable talents of the actors brought in to play them. It's this kind of lazy character development that sabotages much of the good the actors try to bring to the screen, and keeps the movie from ultimately reaching the zenith it ought to have.

Obligatory cast shot.

I feel like I've been saying this a lot in 2013 (and as I write this, it still IS 2013... Happy New Year!), but American Hustle just isn't as good as we expect it to be. It's still GOOD, but you have to navigate a messy story, hit-or-miss character development, and - perhaps its worst sin - a poor, heavy handed ending that comes out of left field and negates many of the "true story" ideas. Here, David O. Russell is a director not at his best, though he at least still has some of the year's best performances under his guidance. Maybe this is part of an inevitable decline from greatness, or perhaps it's simply a slight downturn and his next picture turns into one of the best of all time. But while there's an interesting ABSCAM story out there begging to be told, it's not this one; because it's not really ABOUT the event. There was another director this year who took a "true" story, created a fictionalized narrative around it, changed everything that didn't work or might be controversial, threw in a solid cast and tried to take a humorous approach to it. Who was that again... oh, right, it was Michael Bay. And when your movie can find more apples-to-apples comparisons to Pain & Gain than it can to Argo, you've definitely got some problems.

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.

Double Feature: Silver Linings Playbook and Red Dawn

I've been having major problems with the Internet at my place lately, to the tune of days at a time without service on the network. That's mainly what caused my recent difficulties with posting, so hopefully the new cable modem and the threatening letters to my service provider means I'll be posting with regularity for the extended future. Of course, that also means I'm catching up on some serious movie reviewing, so today will be another double feature from flicks I've seen recently.

I've been looking forward to Silver Linings Playbook for a while now, for a number of reasons. For one, it's director David O. Russell's much-anticipated follow-up to his excellent The Fighter. Second, it carries a talented cast including Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De Niro. Third, it featured what appeared to be a unique and somewhat comedic look at the world of mental illness, a move that is either very brave or very, very foolhardy. The story focuses on bipolar sufferer Pat Solitano (Cooper), who returns to his parents' home after eight months in a mental health facility and the violent outburst that landed him there in the first place. As he struggles to cope with his illness and tries to win back his wife, he meets Tiffany (Lawrence), the widowed sister-in-law of one of his friends. Tiffany suffers from issues stemming from her late husband's death, and soon the pair strike up a somewhat antagonistic friendship in preparing for a local dance competition. But while Pat still pines after his departed wife, does Tiffany hold a torch for Pat?

They agreed to never speak of that photo again.

Silver Linings Playbook is definitely an actor's dream, and its performers are probably the reason it has received such universal acclaim. Russell did an amazing job putting together his cast, who carry the story on their immensely-talented shoulders. Cooper continues to grow as an actor, showing even more depth here than he did in September's The Words, and continues to look like the next generation's superstar. But it's Lawrence who commands the screen, and not just because of her looks. It's easy to forget how young she was when this film was made, as her performance makes her look decades more experienced. It's almost a shame she's locked up for three more Hunger Games sequels, as she really should focus on this side of herself as an actress; more mature performances and a strong presence will not go unnoticed. De Niro and Jacki Weaver do good work as Pat's parents, and their additions create one of film's better family dynamics. Together, their highly dysfunctional family will speak to those who come from similar circumstances, funny and sad all at once. It certainly hearkens back to the familial struggles of The Fighter, and Russell definitely takes advantage of the chaos of an arguing family to make for some singularly impressive scenes.

Scenes with just the two of them are fine, as well.

Unfortunately, the film has a few problems. One is that despite immense acting talents, very few of the character are likable at all. You don't find yourself rooting for them to recover so much as you hope the redemption angle makes its way about so you CAN root for someone.The characters are so mired in their issues that they somehow forget that we have to like them for the story to have any meaning. Also, for all the use of mental illness as a twist on the usual romantic comedy genre, that's the extent of the differences between Russell's film and everything else. Behind the mental illness smokescreen, this is just another romantic film, complete with the usual tropes. The result is that Silver Linings Playbook is not nearly as original as it would have you believe. If you're okay with a slightly upgraded romantic comedy and can sit through some completely unlikable bits, Silver Linings Playbook is worth your time. But it's just not the awards darling critics are making it out to be, and you might be happier waiting for DVD than catching this in the theater.

I actually enjoyed the delayed remake of Red Dawn better than the romantic comedy, surprisingly. I was introduced to the 1984 original while at a friend's house just a few years ago, as we played a drinking game based on the DVD's oughta-be-classic "Carnage Counter", which kept track of deaths, explosions and other gooey occurrences. As you can imagine with a movie based on the idea of a Russian military invasion of the United States, the counter climbed quickly, and the group of us proceeded to get drunk off of our asses. The 2012 version, which sat on a shelf for two years thanks to MGM's bankruptcy problems, features a bevy of young actors, and Chris Hemsworth and Josh Hutcherson have turned themselves into genuine stars in the years since its filming. So it's nice to see early, rough performances from them in a remake that replaces Russians with Chinese, and then digitally into North Koreans to avoid pissing on the Chinese box office.

In Spokane, Washington, the world is just as it should be. Jed Eckert (Hemsworth) is home from a tour of duty in the Middle East. His younger brother Matt (Josh Peck) is a young school football star with loving girlfriend (Isabel Lucas). Jed and Matt have always had issues with one another, but when the North Korean military suddenly and violently invades the country, they must put that aside and escape capture. Teaming up with other teens who managed to evade the army, they dub themselves Wolverines, and under Jed's leadership wage a guerrilla war against the occupying force.

At 5'11, Palicki makes Hemsworth not seem quite as tall.

One distinct advantage Red Dawn has over its progenitor is that even if you've seen the original, you won't be able to predict the outcome of the remake. Sure, the overarching storyline is more or less the same, but the way former stunt coordinator and first-time director Dan Bradley uses his cast and story is so far removed from its inspiration that they barely resemble one another. While the script uses the usual action cliches, the young cast that also includes Connor Cruise and the perpetually up-and-coming Adrianne Palicki make it work for them. Bradley shows a real know-how for the action genre, quickly establishing himself as a potential go-to for future projects. His film features the right amount of drama, action and humor, and while the characters aren't especially deep, they are typically likable for a number of reasons. Peck is also surprisingly strong in a co-lead role, an unexpected development when he's surrounded by many more talented performers (and as he's one of the few actors not to have broken out since its filming).

A new take on Gladiator?

Bradley's film does have a few hiccups; in one scene a couple of teens die rather unceremoniously and without actual certainty that it happened until much later, and the entire concept of a North Korean invasion is way more far-fetched than 1984's Russian/Cuban attack. As I mentioned before, it was supposed to be the Chinese invading our shores, but with China's box office now being one of the top moneymakers on the international scene, it's seen by many as foolish to make China seem aggressive in movies. And so MGM made some changes to avoid being blacklisted completely. The problem is that what would have made China more believable was it's massive population. North Korea can't make that same claim, and the idea of their military managing a successful invasion of our home is so ridiculous that it makes Red Dawn feel more like the blatantly 2'nd Amendment-thumping piece I thought it would be. The movie does its best to make up for that issue, but leaves it an obvious play for Chinese dollars. Still, Red Dawn is a pleasant surprise from a first-time director, and if MGM had managed to stick it out for another year, I wonder what this, Cabin in the Woods and Skyfall could have done to reverse its financial windfall. It's a moot point, and those films all eventually got their time in the sun. If you're hankering for a good action flick, you can safely nab a ticket to this and enjoy the experience.

Horror Show

Normally with so many options out there for things to see, I wouldn't bother with the likes of House at the End of the Street. While there are a few good horror films that come out every year, you can usually tell to a reasonable degree which those will be. More often than not, you'll see the bad ones coming, and in the coming months we'll be subjected to some really horrid-looking titles, including The Collection and the delayed 7500. I know not every horror flick can be as good as Insidious, and every so often I have even been surprised by a strong production. But the genre has a habit of films feeling as cheap as their budgets, and very rarely do they succeed in standing apart from the huddled masses.

One sub-genre of horror that never seems to change much is the teen slasher movie. They have a normal formula, whether they're Slumber Party Massacre or Texas Chainsaw Massacre or Nightmare on Elm Street or Scream: psycho kills pretty young people until he/she is finally brought down (or in some recent fare, utterly succeeds). It's a tale older than my life, with nobody willing or wanting to mess with that magic. And why not? Movies like this are often inexpensively made (no-name actors and almost no special effects), so even a moderate success can reap major profits for a studio.

I like your fashion sense.

The only reason House at the End of the Street even remotely stands out is its star, Jennifer Lawrence. Unless you've been hiding completely under a rock the past couple of years, you might have heard of her. She broke out and easily earned an Academy Award nomination for her leading role in 2010's Winter's Bone. She succeeded in supporting parts in 2011 with X-Men First Class and Like Crazy. And 2012 has turned her into a megastar, as she held the lead role of Katniss Everdeen in March's The Hunger Games. In fact, Lawrence did her work on House before Hunger Games, and it's obvious this movie is now hitting theaters in order to capitalize on her new found  status. She is the only reason you might be tempted to see this movie over anything similar, and that's certainly why I elected to see this one over other fare.

...and your choice in friends.

Seventeen year-old Elissa (Lawrence) and her newly-divorced mother Sarah (Elizabeth Shue) have left Chicago to rent a dream home in a rural suburb. While they love the new house, it does come with a caveat. The house next door was the scene of a brutal double homicide; a mother and father butchered in their home by their daughter, who was never seen again. The only surviving family member, Ryan Jacobsen (Max Theriot), still lives there, repairing the house and is generally considered the pariah of the town. Elissa and Max become attracted to one another, despite the wishes of her mother, and begin a relationship, but something is wrong. Max is keeping a dark secret, one that might not just damage their relationship, but could harm Elissa and her mother as well.

Don't worry, be happy!

What's surprising about this movie is just how original the story manages to be. Okay, original might not be the right word; psychotic, homicidal family members are probably standard fare for tons of films that never reach the big screen. That's the point, though; this kind of story rarely gets proper big screen treatment. Typically this type of movie warrants a huge body count to cover all the plot holes, but a a story House stands on its own nicely. There's no murder spree but an interesting tale of what drives a little girl to murder her parents, and the results are honestly more than a little creepy, especially because you can believe such things would (and perhaps do) happen. It's a shame though that director Mark Tonderai can't quite pull it off, failing to scare the audience for more than a few tense moments. He also falls into the cliches of horror moviemaking, including stunts that for all intents and purposes Scream had shamed out of most modern horror directors.

Freeze, Jump Street!

As expected, Lawrence's talent as the film's protagonist proves to be invaluable. Mixing a classic scream queen with a bit of her role in Winter's Bone, she deftly maneuvers from scene to scene, consistently and believably carrying the whole movie. There are only a few scenes in which she does not appear, but thankfully we never become weary of Elissa, a multi-dimensional character with very solid reasons behind her decisions. It also doesn't hurt that Lawrence is a stone-cold fox, ensuring that any men in the audience will be unable to take their eyes off of her. She's the complete package, and will have absolutely no problem making her mark in the industry. The rest of the cast is a mixed bag, residing firmly in the "good enough" category for horror acting. Elizabeth Shue and Gil Bellows play the requisite authority figures, while Nolan Gerard Funk and Allie MacDonald fill the roles of teenagers who develop friendships with the new girl. They're all fine, playing their nevertheless rote characters with enough conviction to get by. Max Theriot is probably the weakest of the bunch, his face frozen in a "they kicked my puppy dog" look while delivering lines in the same dull tone throughout. Theriot certainly has the look for the part he plays, but never strikes the audience as all that sympathetic, at least not to the degree necessary to attract Elissa to him.

Hoping that biting her lip is the worst thing that happens to her.

The result is a horror film not all that scary and clearly looking to clean house thanks to its main star. House at the End of the Street was made for about half of what Lawrence will be earning in the Hunger Games sequels, and while it manages to do more than a few things right, it's not enough to completely save what could have been an original, haunting story of rural America. Lawrence is enough reason to tough out a cinema visit, but if you can wait you're probably better off waiting for the DVD. Still, it's not nearly as bad as perhaps it should be, with a lead that hauls it a slight step above the rest of the horror pack.

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.

Drive Me Crazy

With really nothing else in theaters to really capture my interest at the moment (at least until The Muppets comes out this week), I decided to take the time to see a small critically-acclaimed title that had been on many "must-see" lists earlier this Fall. However, there were a couple of reasons I wasn't entirely convinced that Like Crazy would be worth my time or money. For one, star Anton Yelchin hadn't proved to me that he could carry a major motion picture. Sure, he was fine in his limited role on the Star Trek reboot, but he was very weak compared to his co-stars in Terminator: Salvation and a leading role in this year's remake of Fright Night was almost enough to discredit his whole career to that point (I believe my damning words called him "a poor man's Shia Lebeouf"). The other reason I wasn't wholly into seeing this title was, well, I really didn't know if I wanted to see a depressing film about love and relationships. If this had been some blockbuster Hollywood release, you know that the two lovebirds would have had only minimal conflict between one another on the way to a guaranteed happy ending. Like Crazy however is an indie romance, almost certainly portending that the relationship between them will be the most excruciating hour and a half spent in the movies this year. It wasn't a situation I relished throwing myself into, and only a complete lack of alternatives (not to mention strong word of mouth) led me to begrudgingly enter the theater and take this release in before future films could shove it to the wayside.

Please, let there not be a crappy "sand" love speech coming on...

Like Crazy tells the story of the romantic relationship between Jacob (Yelchin), a design student, and Anna (Felicity Jones), a British exchange student, as they meet and fall in love in college in Jacob's home town of Los Angeles. Unable to be apart after graduating school, Anna decides to ignore the expiration of her student visa to spend the summer with Jacob, which eventually leads to her being deported to her native United Kingdom. Finding themselves in a difficult long distance relationship, the two can only see one another occasionally and when they do, their increasingly separate lives (which includes trying to see other people) make them feel as if the hundreds of miles of distance is between them even when they stand mere inches apart.

She won't be happy much longer

Not content to tell a simple story, Like Crazy tells the entirety of Jacob and Anna's relationship from beginning to end, and then beginning to end ad infinatum. This is no monochromatic love tale, as several levels of emotion are delved into, with love itself being just the most common. Jealousy, regret, fear and frustration all rear their ugly heads, and rarely is there a happy moment once the two are initially torn apart. It's in the conveyance of these feelings where Like Crazy really does shine, as the highs and lows between these lovers are intricately felt by the audience thanks to the fact that they are rendered in so realistic a manner. We really feel for Jacob and Anna as they move from conflict to conflict, whether it be with each other or the ban keeping them apart.

Wearing the guy's shirt... does that really happen? Ever?

If the film suffers from any real problems, it's the narrative flow of the story, which often makes great leaps between scenes, as obviously a great amount of time has passed without any explanation given as to what has transpired in the meantime. For instance, when Jacob is shown to having developed a new relationship with his co-worker Samantha (Jennifer Lawrence), it isn't readily apparent that Anna even knows that this is happening. This storytelling method creates a few conflicting scenarios where we feel angry at a character's apparent actions, only to discover that we had read the situation incorrectly in the first place. This could have been corrected by young director Drake Doremus, but since the young filmmaker was apparently too busy creating a realistic romantic setting, he can be forgiven for not immediately telling us every single detail. In fact, a lot of what is so charming about this film is what is left out, many scenes hiding what is said between Jacob and Anna like so many whispers from Bob Harris to be heard only by Charlotte. By not making us absorb every little detail, we can focus on the major themes set forth.

Well, maybe she can be a LITTLE happy...

The acting is of a higher caliber than I originally imagined, as well. Playing completely normal people, Yelchin and Jones are both endearing and admirable, with Jones especially mastering that inner turmoil that comes with her particularly darker moments. She plays happy too, and there doesn't seem to be anything that she can't do well. This comes as somewhat of a shock after I was sure she had bombed out from appearing in Julie Taymor's miserable 2010 version of The Tempest. Apparently she's learned to emote after all, and the result is one of the strongest performances by a woman I've seen in 2011. Yelchin is still a little dry, but he also puts his best foot forward, playing well opposite both Jones and Lawrence. I'm sure working with such talent helped him immensely, and I was happy to see him churn out a good performance for a change. Lawrence actually excels in a small role, no small feat after putting up what I thought was a substandard act in one of this year's better titles, X-Men First Class. Playing the "other woman", seeing Samantha caught in the middle of Jacob and Anna's unrequited affections is quite painful, made stronger by Lawrence's disarmingly subtle performance.

No, I said cue sadness, dammit!

I wasn't expecting it, but in one fell (and relatively short) swoop, I became witness to one of the great romances of 2011. Granted, it WAS depressing as all hell, and by the end we're not sure where the relationship between Jacob and Anna will go. Still, I was pleasantly surprised to NOT be a twitching pile of neuroses when the whole thing was well and done, and I can easily recommend this to any who would love to take in a modern romance that isn't ineptly put together by cliches anonymous. It may not be in the year's Top 10, but it's still a great film that young couples can hold as their own and older audiences can nostalgically admire from afar.