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.

Open Letters Monthly: The Master

Have any interest in Paul Thomas Anderson? Or Scientology? Then you've probably been hearing about The Master, Anderson's newly-directed effort that came out a few weeks ago. It tells the story of mentally traumatized WWII sailor Freddie Quells, who attempts to discover his place in the world during peacetime. In his travels, he discovers a religious group calling themselves The Cause and their enigmatic leader Lancaster Dodd. At first Freddie thinks he has found his calling as Dodd's right-hand man. But Dodd's methods to help heal Freddie seem to have no effect, and more and more Freddie hears from others that Dodd is making the whole thing up as he goes. As Freddie becomes more and more frustrated with The Cause, they are growing weary of his violent, immature attitude, with only Lancaster Dodd arguing his importance to The Cause.

The Master is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson and stars Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, Ambyr Childers and Jesse Plemons.

Click here for the complete review at Open Letters Monthly.

Electoral Foul-Up

To hear the industry tell it, Ryan Gosling is the hottest actor in Hollywood as you read this. While much consternation was raised earlier this year over Gosling’s apparent Oscar snub for his role in the indie drama Blue Valentine nobody can doubt the attention he has earned in 2011, in which he has had arguably his biggest year to date. In fact, today marks the third review I’ve written in three months that has starred the young actor, the first two being the romantic comedy Crazy Stupid Love with Steve Carell and the noir crime drama Drive. With The Ides of March, Gosling takes on the world of political intrigue in a film directed by co-star George Clooney. Clooney knows what it’s like to be the hot hand of Hollywood, as he has managed to build a strong career based especially on his charisma and excellent acting. Clooney has had twenty-five years to ascend to that status, with his starring turn in the CBS medical drama E.R. and a robust film resume that has seen plenty of misses but even more hits, and he was a huge reason films like Out of Sight, Michael Clayton and the Oceans trilogy were so well received. His directing career, however, has been a different story. While 2005’s Good Night and Good Luck was a true gem (and probably would have won its best picture nomination had Crash not come out the same year), other films directed by Clooney have been far from well received. Still, the good will Clooney has generated from audiences goes a long way, and his latest attempt behind the camera takes one of the more talented young men in Hollywood to see what he can do with Mr. Gosling.

Wait, does that sign say George Clooney is Evil? Blasphemy!

Based on Beau Willimon’s play Farragut North, the story follows Stephen Meyers (Gosling), the junior campaign manager for Democratic Presidential hopeful Mike Morris (Clooney). Having served on more electoral campaigns than most have by the time they are forty, Stephen is a true believer in the Governor of Pennsylvania. He believes that Morris is not only the best candidate for whom he has worked, but the only one who can and will actually make a change for the good of the country. Currently they are campaigning alongside senior campaign manager Paul Zara (Philip Seymour Hoffman) in Ohio, hoping for a victory in the Primaries here that will easily secure the Democratic nomination. But while this is going on, Stephen discovers a secret that not only throws his confidence in Morris in doubt, but could officially end the Governor’s political career. Now he must determine which is the better option: making sure his flawed man reaches the White House, or throwing in with the competition and rival Tom Duffy (Paul Giamatti) to make sure that Morris doesn’t reach that goal.

Sadly, Clooney's inspiration did not help "Bring the Sexy Back" to the campaign trail

If you want to enjoy The Ides of March, you might have to love politics. I’m not saying this because the film is unapproachable to those who don’t, but the learning curve is certainly steep enough for the uninitiated. The actors involved toss out factoids concerning political history almost at random, and though they are no doubt at least somewhat essential to understanding the scene they are almost completely forgotten by the time the closing credits rolled. You can either take in these random bits of information as a pure sideline entertainment and by turn having a leg up on your fellow movie watchers, or you can ignore them completely and try to just follow the mood of the story as it goes along. The latter is certainly where most would tread, but unfortunately you can’t get the full campaign experience without trying to understand why the characters act the way they do. Thankfully the major themes are ones that EVERYONE should be able to understand, and that the film succeeds in not completely alienating its audience it a minor victory.

Presidential jaw, Presidential hair... you sure he's not a Republican?

Unfortunately, that’s about all this film can say went right, as even those political aficionados would have little reason to sit through The Ides of March’s entire 101 minutes. Doubtless there are any large number of conflicts in a Presidential campaign, but why on Earth did Clooney and company have to make the entire thing so DULL? Perhaps it’s not entirely his fault, and the Willimon play is at least part of the problem. That still doesn’t excuse the fact that a film full to the brim with devious schemes, political intrigue, scandals, deception, blackmail and revenge is so utterly uninteresting to watch. What should have been keeping me riveted to my seat instead kept me waiting for something, ANYTHING to happen. With surprisingly horrid pacing, I simply didn’t care about this candidate, this election or any of the underpinning issues that went into it, and that is certainly the fault of the filmmakers.

Some people will just never be happy

At least an excellent cast has been brought in to somewhat raise the level of the tepid script. Gosling once again argues that he belongs in Hollywood’s upper echelon. While not near as memorable as his previous starring roles, he is still perfectly cast as the closest thing the audience has to a hero. Stephen is smart, talented, charming and experienced, and should be easy to root for. Even when his character’s morals and methods change, Gosling is entirely in control. Easily the rising star of 2011, his dedication to roles like this should cement his future superstardom. Clooney as a Presidential candidate is not all that different from Clooney in the public eye: he’s charming, looks the part and can speak publicly with the best of them. In short, Clooney carries the perfect political persona. His performance might be a little on the nose (and therefore lacking the diversity to be interesting) but since many celebrity hounds already see him as a potential Presidential front runner, he was in fact the best choice for the role. Philip Seymour Hoffman has always been a strong character actor. Once again however he is an actor straining to be free from the confines of a singularly rote character, even one with some devious methods all his own. Hoffman is most certainly too much actor for the part he plays, but he still brings a ton of professionalism and talent to the cast. Possibly shining most brightly is Paul Giamatti as an unscrupulous campaign manager who tries to tempt Stephen to joining the other side. Smarmy and duplicitous, it’s easy to pin the main antagonist tag on his head, and it’s difficult to believe that this is the same guy who was the hero of this year’s indie dramedy Win Win. Like Hoffman, he’s one of the most talented character actors in Hollywood today. Others who contribute are The Wrestler actresses Marissa Tomei and Evan Rachel Wood. Tomei is a political journalist for the New York Times, while Wood plays an intern and romantic interest for Stephen. Both have their roles to play, and while Tomei is limited in scope for her character, Wood turns out to be almost a kindred spirit to Gosling, and the attention that gets focused on her is not put to waste in even the slightest fashion. Jeffrey Wright is another talented performer, but unfortunately his character – an Ohio politician whose endorsement would be essential to Morris’ victory – harbors too much of a vibe copied from baseball Hall of Famer Reggie Jackson (right down to the facial hair), with his own aspirations above that of the people he represents.

Sadly, Morris' other slogan "Hope" was already taken

Clooney might be responding somewhat to much of the populace thinking he’d be a great political frontrunner (and he might at that), but in The Ides of March he presents so jaded and dark a vision of the American political system that there is really no cause for even the smallest hopes of purity to arise. Between that, the bland dullness of a script, too many cliched characters and sheer lack of imagination (they reuse a famous scandal to try and move the story forward) take this film from being one of the big contenders of 2011 to somewhere amidst the pack of wannabes. When a political thriller doesn’t particularly THRILL, it’s a cause for serious concern, and this title has the feel of a half-baked drama that was rushed out the door. Sadly, this might even be the wrong time for The Ides of March to be released, as the demonstrations occurring across the country suggests that people have had their fill of corruption for the time being. The Ides of March is not Oscar worthy, but it does have enough going for it to perhaps fool many into thinking otherwise. If you’re big into politics and want to see a bunch of talented actors do what they do so well, this film will whet your palate nicely. If not, then when I see you next we can move on.

Home Run

I don't know how long my father has been a fan of the great sport of baseball, but I do know that it has been a long, LONG time. Particularly interested in the numbers game baseball has become in recent years, he early on bought the annually-released books by statistical pioneer Bill James, the Baseball Abstract. James would tackle the subject of baseball in a way unlike any who had come before or who have since, but fans like my father would snatch up all this unconventional wisdom that would allow them to look at something they loved in a brand new light. James' invention, a statistical analysis of baseball that he called sabermetrics, could analyze a player's skill and could even help plot trends in their baseball careers. Today he is considered one of the most influential people in the world, but only a decade ago he was all but ignored by those who ran the sport, because he often went against their more traditional (and ancient) ways of thinking. Eventually his ideas reached the ears of a man with an open mind, Oakland Athletics General Manager Billy Beane. In the 2003 book Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, author Michael Lewis talked about how Beane used sabermetrics to turn his underfunded baseball team into a juggernaut by focusing attention on players that were dismissed by advocates of traditional scouting due to intangibles or downright incorrect preconceptions. The excellence of the book, not to mention the legacy that James and Beane have introduced to the sport, is the main reason I had been looking forward to the film adaptation of Moneyball. While I may be on the fence at times with Brad Pitt, I can't deny how far he has come in recent years after being little more than a pretty face during much of his early Hollywood career.

Two of the more unexpected faces to see in a Baseball movie

After his 2001 Oakland Athletics suffer heartbreaking loss against the New York Yankees during the first round of the playoffs (winning the first two games before falling in three straight), Billy Beane (Pitt) has an uphill struggle in front of him. Due to the financial constraints of being a small-market baseball team, Oakland is losing its three best players, and a low budget means there is no way they can afford appropriate replacements. Despite this imbalanced system which rewards rich teams while treating poor ones like minor league affiliates, Beane is frustrated that his scouting department refuses to look at the situation differently from their more affluent competition. This is especially personal for him because it was sweet-talking scouts that had convinced Beane that he was a top-notch talent when he chose his own baseball career over going to college twenty years prior. Still not fully trusting scouts, Beane turns to student of sabermetrics Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), to help build a team from players that most won't touch for various reasons. Though the team has some early struggles, Beane and Brand slowly see this team defy the odds and become a championship-caliber ball club, culminating in the longest winning streak in the history of professional baseball.

Rating his performance in The Tree of Life

The superb casting is what gives Moneyball so much of its flavor. While Pitt and Hill are not stretched very far in what they are given to do on screen, it is their character's friendship and professionalism together that really elevate this film over the bargain basement buddy formula it could have become. Of the two, Hill is somewhat more outside his comfort zone as a young comedy actor; however there are plenty of quips, jibes and smirks delivered deftly, and in that regard Hill might appear to most as performing far superior in comparing this to his earlier efforts. He IS better, no doubt, but don't get your hopes thinking this is going to turn Hill into a perennial awards contender. He and the understated Pitt work well together, and for now that's all we need. The two do have some strong support, most notably Philip Seymour Hoffman as Athletics Manager Art Howe, perpetually grumpy at managing under a one-year contract (which as he points out means that the people in charge have no confidence in him). It's not a big part but Hoffman is perfectly cast and of course does a great job when put on the spot. Several of the baseball players also stand out, especially Stephen Bishop as declining veteran outfielder David Justice and Parks and Recreations star Chris Pratt as converted first baseman (he was originally a catcher before a career-derailing injury) Scott Hatteberg, both of whom proved important to Oakland's playoff run. Less impressive are the actors playing parts in Beane's home life, especially the perennially-underutilized Robin Wright as his unremarkable ex-wife and Kerris Dorsey as his supportive but "why is she there?" daughter. Because the film focuses more on the balance between Beane's baseball and home lives, it doesn't move far to either extreme, meaning any lasting impression those characters might have added were reduced to minimal at best.

Now, don't all stand up at once

Aaron Sorkin was brought in to write Moneyball's script, and while his tendency to ramble on for minutes at a time explaining specifics might have gotten a little old in last year's The Social Network (best screenplay my ASS), here it actually works in the film's favor. After all, what baseball junkie have you met who DOESN'T ramble for seemingly ever about minor details? As my father and I and countless others would agree, endless minutiae is what makes baseball such a fascinating topic in the first place. Sorkin and director Bennett Miller capture this by default in tackling the story introduced by Lewis, but focus on the major league club exclusively, where the book also dedicated part of the tale to the A's minor league efforts. Bennett, whose last directorial effort was the overrated but still classic Capote, injects much needed humor into the tale, which helps expand Moneyball's interest to a wider audience than it would normally appeal.

A baseball movie that focuses on the old guys

Of course, this popularization of the film doesn't let a little thing like factual information get in the way. While the basic idea behind sabermetrics and how it helped the 2002 Oakland A's is fairly intact, some nagging inconsistencies do pop up. While Scott Hatteberg did indeed struggle defensively upon moving to first base, his main competition for the role, Carlos Pena, was not the "All-Star" the film would have you believe. Pena spent more of the season at Triple A Sacramento than he did in Oakland and didn't hit particularly well in the majors before being traded to the Detroit Tigers. And while I won't go into a complete rant about it, it was odd for the filmmakers to create a composite of Beane's aides (most notably Assistant GM Paul DePodesta) in the fictional Peter Brand. Also Beane's daughter sings and plays a song about midway through the film that wasn't even in existence until six years after the film takes place (Lenka's 2008 single The Show). These wouldn't be major issues if Moneyball didn't excel in the research aspects of the film, as in the few actual baseball scenes you can see that they have accurate rosters in place for the times of the games, with the correct names stenciled on the back of jerseys. That the film takes pains in some places to appear authentic while simultaneously taking liberties with historical fact is not a bit distressing, as choosing pure entertainment every time is one of Sorkin's bad habits as a screenwriter. As a final note, the film points out that Beane still hasn't won a World Series using his system, but mentions that the Boston Red Sox won just two years later after adopting Beane's philosophies. This is what makes the story behind Moneyball so tragic; Beane changed the game with his methods, but once the big market clubs started looking at baseball stats in the same way he was, his small budget once again had him at a disadvantage. The film naturally glosses this over, failing to mention that Beane's club has not had a winning record since 2006.

Oakland sees a record crowd

These demerits are the only things that prevent me from genuinely placing Moneyball #1 on my Top 10 list for the year. While the narration does get slightly jumbled about the midway point (normal for a sports film compacting dozens of games into five minutes of time), Moneyball excels in telling a story that is smart enough for Bill James enthusiasts while appealing to a wide audience that doesn't need all that mystical mumbo-jumbo to get by. One of 2011's best, Moneyball is worth the price of a ticket as the #2 movie of the year. My father and any other baseball fan would approve.