'Out of the Furnace' Burns Brightly

I didn't know this, but apparently the weekend after Thanksgiving is not particularly productive for the North American box office. Since it's usually such a slow weekend, movies released at this time tend to be few, with maybe one new release opening up and often failing to garner an audience when it does. Two years ago, it was the terrible The Warriors Way that was sacrificed to an early grave, while last year saw the critically praised but commercially panned Killing Them Softly (which I also consummately hated) diffuse all potential Oscar talk for Brad Pitt in 2012. This year, the sole national release for this weekend is Out of the Furnace, Scott Cooper's directorial followup to 2009's well-received country-singing Crazy Heart, a title many considered a decent pick for Academy Award potential. Does this mediocre release date (which guaranteed an early box office finish behind Frozen and The Hunger Games: Catching Fire) mean that the studios and their celebrity producers (Ridley Scott and Leonardo DiCaprio, who had originally been labeled as director and actor) believe their film doesn't deserve that much faith?

A bit of fun before all the drama begins.

Out of the Furnace is a revenge thriller that pits Russell Baze (Academy Award-winner Christian Bale) - a normal, factory-working good man in Braddock, PA - against lowlife criminal and overall scumbag Harlan DeGroat (Woody Harrelson), an Appalachian hustler who is suspected of being responsible for the disappearance of Russell's brother Rodney (Casey Affleck). With there being only so much the law can do, Russell feels he is the only man who can find and punish the man responsible for separating him from his brother.

Gladiator gets a sequel 2000 years in the making.

This movie has two major strengths going for it: Cooper, and his amazing cast. As a sophomore director, Cooper has a lot to live up to, especially with praise for Crazy Heart being as great as it was. He has a natural aptitude for storytelling, and that's especially good when the story he actually tells differs in respects to what the trailers had brought a potential audience to expect. Now, it's not that the trailers lied, per se, but they do diverge quite widely from the tale Cooper actually brings to us. Considering how many trailers essentially give away the story of their respective titles, that Out of the Furnace surprises us with its twists and turns is just as much a key to victory as Cooper's overall talent. The director has a talent for capturing the perfect shot, and the imagery he evokes is that of a big-budget Winter's Bone due to its Appalachian, Rust Belt locale and depressed economic setting. He makes great use of his locale to establish his story (which he re-wrote from a script by Brad Ingelsby), and despite the dangers of a slow-burning plot (Killing Them Softly was terribly slow, to the point of boredom), the movie is never dull, keeping you entranced as you anxiously wait to see what happens next.

He's really going for that Oscar this year.

And as I mentioned, Cooper gets a huge boost from his all-star cast, especially concerning the (surprisingly limited) interplay between Bale and Harrelson. Harrelson's Harlan is a monster from the word go, and the film more than establishes him as a dangerous, evil human being (and setting the foundations for Best Supporting Actor nods, perhaps), more than worthy for a movie of this style. Meanwhile, Bale's Russell takes a lot longer to set up, while never losing sight of the idea that he is the epitome of good. That building of his character was necessary to keep Russell from stagnating, and despite some threats of cliche, Bale reminds everybody of the monumental talent he really is. Affleck meanwhile quietly puts forth one of his best performances, that of a youth troubled by war and falling into the trappings of debt and depression. Affleck has always been a good (sometimes better than big brother Ben) actor, but his turn in Furnace easily takes the top prize. Zoe Saldana also excels, though I found myself wishing they'd used her a bit more. After all, there's no doubt in my mind that one day this young talent will earn Academy Award nominations, and perhaps walk away with one as well. This was an excellent display of her skills (the scene with Bale on the footbridge is emotionally devastating) and she's absolutely destined for bigger things than Star Trek and Colombiana. Forest Whitaker, Sam Shepard and Willem Dafoe round out a fully engaging cast, one that really makes the best of their given material.

Spoiler: this is the best scene in the movie.

And that's a good thing, because the material they have to work with is... "meh". Cooper supposedly had his own upbringing in Appalachia in mind when he was retooling Ingelsby's screenplay, but the result is a LOT of universally cliched ideas. The major and minor themes - poverty, frontier justice, social treatment of combat veterans, legal jurisdiction battles, loneliness, emotional trauma, brotherhood - have been done before, in essentially this same format. No matter how good the actors are (and they are spectacular!), Cooper can't quite compel his movie to be more unique than it actually is. There were also some questionable decisions made for the final cut, as some scenes ran a little over-long and contained some questionably redundant material (I mean seriously, how many times to we need to be reminded that Russell is a good man?). But while the director really should have let someone else come in and tinker with his relatively disappointing script, he's a talented-enough artist to somewhat overcome those hurdles, while trusting his cast to do the heavy lifting in a tale that doesn't lack for suspense and authentic emotional toil.

Now, who's up for playing Old Yeller?

There's a surprisingly long setup, as the audience soon becomes fully accustomed to the slow burn that takes up the first 90 minutes of Out of the Furnace. That makes the swift final act a complete surprise, as Cooper had perfectly positioned his pawns for a quick checkmate. But despite feeling a little rushed, the movie actually benefits from this change of pace, and it actually makes for quite the exciting and appropriate conclusion to the tale. Still, it (and his minor, newbie-level mistakes) keeps his final product from becoming the awards juggernaut it ABSOLUTELY had the potential to be. Out of the Furnace is still tons better than the fare that usually comes out the weekend after Thanksgiving, and if you find yourself with a couple of hours to spend before the year's end, you can do a whole lot worse than giving Scott Cooper's latest effort a shot. Great actors, an up-and-coming director and not one boring moment make for a couple hours of sheer quality entertainment.

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.

I'm Free as a Bird Now

With Thanksgiving rapidly approaching, what better than an animated kid's movie to put you off of your turkey day festivities? No, really, I'm serious.

Free Birds follows smarter-than-average Reggie (Owen Wilson), the latest turkey to be pardoned by the President of the United States, as he lounges away his stress-free days at Camp David. Soon, he meets and is kidnapped by fellow turkey (and intellectual counterpart) Jake (Woody Harrelson), a freedom fighter who recruits Reggie for a mission of the utmost importance, given to him by none lesser than the "Great Turkey". Using the government's super-secret time machine (naturally located near the President's vacation spot), the duo travel back in time to rally the turkeys of 1621 and to forever remove their species from the Thanksgiving feast menu.

Free Birds is the first animated feature film to be released by Reel FX Creative Studios, yet another in the growing list of companies hoping one day to be on the same level as Pixar or Dreamworks Animation. Just looking at the condition of their first feature, there's no doubt that there's a long way to go for there being any chance to reach that plateau, but there's still a lot to like here, especially when there's not a whole lot in theaters right now that looks to challenge it for family viewing.

Indicative of the "faceless government" we all know and love...

Under the direction of Jimmy Hayward (wisely returning to animation after the disastrous live-action Jonah Hex), Free Birds shows off intentionally cartoonish animation that is leagues better than some of what I've seen this year, especially when you consider how many movies from experienced filmmakers have come out in 2013. When you compare the sheer quality of the animation to Epic and Despicable Me 2, there's not much contest. Hayward and his team put in a solid effort on the character animation AND the design of the universe they inhabit, and the results are simply gorgeous.

...and unfortunately, that doesn't translate to still shots.

The film also boasts a very talented cast, led by Owen Wilson, Woody Harrelson and Amy Poehler. Wilson's somewhat cartoonish voice naturally lends itself to animated fare, and if he wasn't so in demand for live-action gigs, I could easily see him easily transitioning into voice-only work for easy money. Despite frequent hiccups like The Internship, I remain convinced that Wilson is actually an underrated actor (watch Midnight in Paris for the best example), and when he actually helps out a production, it's worth noting. Considering Harrelson's vegan, pro-animals lifestyle, it's easy to understand why he got on board with this production. It helps that he's the film's greatest asset, combining the bravado of an American action star with the comedic timing of... well, Woody Harrelson. Poehler doesn't carry the same kind of weight with her performance as her co-leads, but she still does a decent enough job as a native Turkey fighting for survival before the first Thanksgiving. The cast is rounded out by genre standards, from a ruthless hunter (Colm Meaney) to an honorable Turkey Chief (leave it to Keith David to make me cry), though the film is stolen at many moments by Star Trek's George Takei as the voice of S.T.E.V.E., the time machine's charismatic artificial intelligence. Hayward also provides voices for several characters, and does a good enough job that it's surprising he hasn't done this kind of work before. The cast overall puts in a solid effort, and Free Birds is all their better for their dedicated involvement.

Reggie enjoys the simple things in life.

Sadly, we're reminded that this IS a film designed for small children, and even the most youth-minded of adults will become alert to this fact in quick succession. From the simplistic plot to the annoying sidekick who are just there to appeal to younger viewers, there's little here to appeal to people of older persuasions, and while there's a tender soul hidden within the story, Hayward doesn't do quite good enough job of letting it loose as the birds whose freedom he's advocating. Free Birds starts with the myth that turkeys are naturally dumb (which anyone who actually has spent time with the birds will tell you is an utterly false pretense), then never fully makes up for its missteps by the the film's end. Instead, a by-the-book story of uprising and justice is littered with jokes (some good, some cringe-worthy bad) and material that will be out of date in ten years' time (punctuated by an obligatory "Angry Birds" reference and the appearance of "Turducken"). Free Birds also doesn't recognize one of its best bits, as an early favorite for kids (and one heavily featured in the trailer) are the yellow-HAZMAT-suited government agents, who completely disappear after our heroes go back through time. By not revisiting them at all after the first act, it's clear that the filmmakers either lost sight of or never realized the true draw of their motion picture. In a year where Dreamworks makes cavemen more than a five minute joke and Pixar actually makes a CLEAN college film, it's a shame that second and third-rate animation studios do not take the lessons they SHOULD be learning from the big two, and only try to match them in terms of technology.

As per the norm, it's the lady that rules the roost.

For the record, Free Birds is a pretty good movie. No, it certainly doesn't appear that great when compared to the best and greatest of today's animated fare, but for a first-time effort from a fledgling studio, it could have been much, MUCH worse than the genuinely fun flick we get. It doesn't have much to offer the non-family audiences, however, so if you're flying solo or taking somebody more mature to the movies you'd do better to buy tickets for just about any other title out there. At least until Disney's Frozen hits theaters in two weeks, this is the best flick to take your young children, and while spending extra to see this in 3D wouldn't really be worth it (par for the course), it's still one you can take your kids to enjoy without worries that they won't get the message. And while the delivery is doubtlessly flawed, Free Birds' message is one just smart enough to which you might just choose to listen.

Open Letters Mothly: Now You See Me

All-star casts can be hit or miss. For every The Departed, The Expendables or Oceans 11, there is Mars Attacks or this year's absolutely horrid "comedy" Movie 43. To balance so many A-list personalities at once is a magic act in and of itself, and that is the perfect segue into Now You See Me, which has two former Oscar winners and three former nominees among its actors. It's magic act is nothing short of impossible, and that's what makes it so intriguing a premise for the big screen.

One year after four street magicians were plucked off the street by a mysterious benefactor, "The Four Horsemen" are headlining Las Vegas when they pull off the impossible: transporting a man across space and time to help them rob a bank in Paris. When the FBI gets involved and can find no way to see how they pulled it off other than "magic", the Horsemen are free to go. Now it's a race against time as the law tries to figure out how these seemingly harmless magicians are creating the impossible, and its a race against the clock to stop them from completing their final performance.

Now You See Me is directed by Louis Leterrier and stars Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo, Woody Harrelson, Melanie Laurent, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman.

Click here for the full review at Open Letters Monthly.

Crazy

One movie I sometimes hear mentioned is 2008's In Bruges, the black comedy from director and screenwriter Martin McDonagh. The film, which has quickly become a cult classic, combined an interesting premise with a violent story, earning star Colin Farrell a Golden Globe for his performance and In Bruges itself a Golden Globe nomination for best screenplay. It was McDonagh's first feature film, and set him up as a director to watch in the future.

The future is here now, and his sophomore effort Seven Psychopaths seems to have it all; a high-caliber cast, an overdose of inappropriate humor and more than enough violence to keep you on your toes. I mean, come on; how can you not get excited about a film called "Seven Psychopaths"? In a weekend of four major interesting releases (the others being Argo, Sinister and Here Comes the Boom), McDonagh's was the most original and intelligent option. That's what Todd and I agreed, and what several of our friends and cohorts affirmed was the title to see.

They won't take any Shih Tzu

Marty (Farrell) is a struggling screenwriter depressed over his current state of writer's block. He's got a title in mind - Seven Psychopaths - but is having a hard time coming up with ides for the seven. He is assisted by his best friend Billy (Sam Rockwell), an out of work actor and part-time dog-napper who alongside the non-violent Hans (Christopher Walken) steal dogs from their owners and then return them for the reward money. The business is going well until Billy steals the Shih Tzu (the breed was picked I'm sure so the characters could purposely err in pronunciation) of violent crime lord Charlie Costello (Woody Harrelson). Marty gets caught up in the mess, and soon the three men are on the lam, with Marty hoping he can finish writing his movie before he becomes the victim of one of his Psychopaths.

This dog needs more cowbell!

There's one guarantee I will make about this movie; you will NEVER be able to predict what will happen next. From the intense violence of the very first scene, Seven Psychopaths follows its own individual path. Unlike every title out there. it doesn't follow the same trodden paths to the same boring conclusions, and refuses to confine itself to any particular genre. At some moments it's light-hearted comedy, at others Quentin Tarantino's wet dream. The characters, especially the eponymous Psychopaths (who are gradually introduced throughout), are so incredibly unpredictable that you will never see the next action coming, and the resulting surprise makes Seven Psychopaths unlike anything you have seen to this point.

"Fire Danger" is right!

The Psychopaths themselves are a varied bunch, whether they originate from real life or Marty's imagination. They range from simply bizarre (the Quaker Psychopath, for instance) to the intensely violent Charlie Costello. Each has their own quirks and back-story, and even if they appear only for a few minutes they make lasting impressions on the film. My personal favorite was the masked Jack O'Diamonds, whose gimmick was killing mid-to-high-ranking members of organized crime syndicates and leaves playing cards on their bodies. You never knew when he was going to show up, and you found yourself relishing every moment he did. But none of the psychos is unforgettable, and you'll find yourself following the bread trail as each is reluctantly brought to light and developed.

Move over, Uggie.

Surprisingly central to the story was the the interplay between Marty, Billy and Hans as they work on Marty's script. It's quite the mix of methodologies as each wishes to make their mark on the budding screenplay. Marty doesn't want to go down the cliched, violent road that you would expect from a film called Seven Psychopaths, while Billy practically demands the big shoot-out to take place at the end. Hans meanwhile, being a Buddhist by nature, wants a more peaceful conclusion to things. What's funny is that they're fighting about the ending of the movie they end up being in, and I thought it made for an interesting mix of Tarantino and Spike Jonze's 2002 gem Adaptation. The final act is especially well-woven, and makes for a fine and appropriate conclusion to a wickedly funny and insane narrative.

Abbie Cornish's five minutes are about up...

The film also takes advantage of an excellent, underrated cast that delivers both laughs and heart in a script that doesn't broker any weak performances. Farrell doesn't always get the best scripts, but he always puts everything he has on the table. Though playing an alcoholic Irishman wouldn't seem like much of a stretch, it's hilarious to see him get berated (even by the Psychopaths) for his excessive drinking. He always puts everything on the table in his performances, even when he isn't given the best scripts, and so on this screen his performance is genius. Rockwell, another supremely-talented actor, balances that dynamic by playing up Billy's zany antics and manic tendencies. What's great about Billy is his ability to do the absolute wrong things for the right reasons, and I can't imagine anyone besides Rockwell pulling it off.  It would have been interesting to see what Mickey Rourke could have done with the role, but I'm glad Harrelson eventually got to play of Charlie Costello. Continually proving that he has broadened as an actor since his Cheers days, Woody Harrelson has the right look and is as perfectly cast as one can get. So surprisingly is musician Tom Waits as a bunny-carrying Psychopath in a minor role. The ladies are sadly underutilized; with high-profile castings of Quantum of Solace's Olga Kurylenko and Sucker Punch's Abbie Cornish, and their appearances in the trailers, I was expecting more. Marty and crew do somewhat make up for it by joking about it later, but the only thing not making it a deal breaker is that this movie is really about the guys anyway.

"Alas, poor Yorick. I knew him, Horatio."

And the guy of the hour is most definitely Christopher Walken. Despite how much I loved the rest of this flick, there's no way I'd have enjoyed it half as much if not for his mere presence. There have been plenty of impersonators over the years, but the best continues to be Walken himself, who gladly uses his offbeat speech rhythm and deadpan facade to great effect. Whatever he's talking about automatically becomes comic gold, and when the subjects turn to the completely insane topics the film addresses, he reaches a whole other level. You could easily see this movie for him alone and walk away satisfied. Like John Malkovich, he is one of Hollywood's most unique actors, and it almost always worth watching.

"But where has all the RUM gone??"

But Seven Psychopaths is no mere one-man show. It's one of the best times you'll spend at the theater this year, and appropriately steps in at #7 for 2012. It will probably be little remembered by audiences who don't want a new experience when they visit the theater, but for anyone wanting something NEW and FRESH with their cinema experience, this one becomes a must-see. Get to it before Paranormal Activity 4 knocks it from theaters for good.

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.

Rom-Com Merry Go Round

Back in January, I reviewed a romantic comedy starring Ashton Kutcher and Natalie Portman called No Strings Attached. In the film, two friends decide to cast aside the emotional baggage of relationships and focus on the sexual gratification aspect with one another. No matter what happened, they would keep love out of the equation, and remain friends. Well, guess what? It didn't work then and it doesn't work in Friends with Benefits either, to nobody's surprise. Directed by Easy A's Will Gluck, Friends at least looks better than No Strings Attached on paper. While the earlier-released film has arguably the bigger star power (with the eventual Oscar winner Portman leading the charge), the overall production of Friends came off much more nicely in previews. This was thanks not only to the seemingly natural chemistry between stars Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis, but hilarious R-rated scenes featuring Woody Harrelson and Patricia Clarkson. Though their themes would seem to be the same, I was expecting a better total film when I walked into the theaters to check out the newest of the new releases this past week. If at its worst it was still better than No String Attached, it could well be considered a success.

The closest Timberlake will ever be to a real woman?

When young headhunter Jamie (Mila Kunis) successfully convinces indie journalist Dylan (Justin Timberlake) to take a groundbreaking job at GQ, the two fast become good friends. With Dylan adjusting to the pressures of leaving his family behind in Los Angeles to endure the rigors of New York City, Jamie becomes his constant anchor. Both are recovering from major relationship breakups, and while they don't want to become boyfriend/girlfriend with the other, they DO miss sexual intercourse. Like, a LOT. So they decide to make a pact; no emotional attachment, no jealousy, just sex. Oh, and no matter what happens, the two remain friends. That lasts for a while, but as things continue, they begin to grow together, and before you can shout that you saw it coming from the opening credits, the two fall in love. But with their relationship history, is this unlikely pairing even possible in the long-term?

Yup, she's helping!

While the story in Friends with Benefits is at least well told, one major misstep is that it ridicules the romantic comedy genre while at the same time committing all its cardinal acts. Characters shouting that true love is a farce pretty much guarantees that true love is what they'll find, and no amount of attempted diversions will make the audience believe otherwise. This is surprising considering how unique and few retread steps adorned director Gluck's last film, Easy A. Other rote rom-com trends include gay best friends, parent-child relationship issues, and one character suffering from an illness that many of us know about but not too many people have to live with. It's depressing how such an up-front idea (casual sex) might have added to the genre had it not merely been made into a set piece, and a poor one at that. There's already been a better casual sex comedy released, but I won't be getting to Crazy, Stupid, Love until next week.

Let the vigorous humping begin

The acting is quite good, but to be honest I wasn't as enamoured with the leading couple as I'd hoped I would be. My criticism with Timberlake is the same as with most of his film roles: all style, no substance. He's portrayed as being just like most of us, a down-to-earth guy who cares about all the right things. The problem with this is that it's not a person, it's a character, and Timberlake doesn't have the acting chops to make it more than that. Sure, he can trade barbs in a charming manner with Kunis, but that's about the highest peak of his prowess in front of the camera thus far. Kunis is by far the better of the main couple, though it would still be a stretch of imagine her as anything other than a slightly older and more mature Jackie Burhart from That 70's Show. It would be obvious that the role was written for her even if the director hadn't admitted to it anyway, and it's too bad, since I think she has some actual talent and hasn't really had an opportunity to showcase it beyond 2010's Black Swan. The duo have some chemistry, but not enough to make the audience stand up and take notice. That's why it's a relief that the supporting cast is much better than the two leads in terms of stealing the spotlight. Woody Harrelson gets the most laughs as GQ's homosexual sports editor who plays the role of romantic advisor to Dylan. Every like he utters is a hoot; it's just a shame they're all in the trailer. Patricia Clarkson is also a joy to see on screen, though it would be fair to say her role here pales in comparison to her part in Easy A. Playing Jamie's sexually-adventurous mother, Clarkson doesn't get nearly as much attention as perhaps she deserves, but does the best with what she can, which includes some truly hilarious and outrageous settings. And Richard Jenkins once again almost steals the show in his scenes as Dylan's father. Honestly, the film could have focused on these three characters and been so much better, but sadly that was not to be.

"Awww" moments are thankfully few and far between

But these acting performances do not save Friends with Benefits from itself. The funniest and best scenes from the film are covered by the trailers, the story has been done to death a billion times before, we really aren't compelled to root for these two lead characters to defy the expectations and get together. Throw in tons of obvious product placement, unfocused and unnecessary use of pop culture references like Olympic snowboarder Shaun White and flash mobs, and the fact that the film quickly becomes the monster it at first decries, and liking this film should not even be an option. Plenty of charm and some good bits do elevate it slightly higher than No Strings Attached, but not by as much as you would think. If you really want to see a sweet, engaging romantic comedy, do yourself a favor and see Crazy, Stupid, Love. Now THERE'S a film worth your hard-earned money.

Zombies in the Mist

End of the world zombie comedy? No thanks, I already saw Shaun of the Dead.

That's what I thought last summer, anyway, when Zombieland took number one at the box office and went on to become the most successful zombie movie ever. Despite the success, and despite the stellar reviews it received, I was not very enthusiastic about seeing the movie in the theaters. When Shaun of the Dead came out back in 2004, it was the critic's darling. All the reviewers loved it, and it seemed like everyone I knew, whether fans of zombie movies or just movie fans in general, would shout from the rooftops about how great this movie was. So finally I relented, but instead of this fantastic film that would be worthy of such praise, my response? "Meh."

It wasn't that I thought the movie was bad. On the contrary, I thought it was very clever, with some outrageously funny moments. It seemed to carry a good balance between respecting the source material while at the same time parodying it's cultural commentaries. I simply thought that the film didn't live up to the hype put upon me by people who seemed to think it was the best movie that came out that year. It's the reason I still haven't seen Hot Fuzz despite actually wanting to see it at some point. And it's why I waited almost a year to see Zombieland, despite much interest I had in the Woody Harrelson-fronted film about surviving after the worst has come to be.

The narrative for Zombieland is told by Jesse Eisenberg's character, called Columbus. Columbus is a college student who has managed to survive the zombie apocalypse by following his thirty-three rules of life, many of which somehow translate perfectly into surviving zombie attacks or surviving in Zombieland altogether. Some, like Cardio (1), Wear Seatbelts (4), and the Buddy System (29) make sense in real life as well as the endtimes. Eisenberg is headed cross-country to his hometown of Columbus where he hopes to find his family and see if his home survived what has happened to the rest of the world, despite not having been very close to his family to begin with. On the way, he encounters Talahassee (Harrelson), a somewhat crazy survivor who has made a business out of killing the undead, and to hear him put it, "Business is good!" Not only is Talahassee two cans short of a six pack, but he's on a peculiar quest to find Twinkies: "not just any box of Twinkies, the last box of Twinkies that anyone will enjoy in the whole universe. Believe it or not, Twinkies have an expiration date. Some day very soon, Life's little Twinkie gauge is gonna go... empty." Despite each of their eccentricities, the two decide to team up, if at least for the short term, and their chemistry and scenes together often make for the most enjoyable parts of the movie, as each mocks the other with mutual respect as fellow survivors would.

Before too long, the duo meet up with the sister con-girls Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), who manage to rob and abandon them multiple times over the course of the film. The sisters are on their way to Pacific Playland, a California amusement park, where it's rumored that there are no zombies. Wichita merely wants Little Rock to be able to have fun at least once in a world where zombies are pretty much the dominant species. And so the sisters team up with our heroes, if only so long as to reach the park.

That's the plot in a nutshell, and though it's weak and nothing to write home about, it's fine because the movie is buoyed by it's characters and acting. Eisenberg (Who had a breakout year with this and his summer comedy Adventureland) is perfect as the neurotic Columbus, not only in his deadpan narration and comedy timing, but also in his body language, which manages to properly convey his fear and his incredulity to the situations in which he finds himself. But he's got nothing on Harrelson, who had some unique conditions for signing onto the project (including ecologically-friendly sets and director Ruben Fleischer not consuming dairy for a week) and proved he was worth it, putting together a kick-ass performance in which he owns every scene and makes this Twinkie-hunting, zombie-killing maniac believable and sympathetic. Who can say 2009 wasn't his year, as in addition to this film, he had a notable role in the action film 2012 and an Oscar-nominated one for The Messenger. Emma Stone may be known to most as Jonah Hill's romantic interest in the 2007 film Superbad, and while she is fine as older sister and con-woman Wichita, she's up at the same level as the other people in the cast. Abigail Breslin may be forever identified as Little Miss Sunshine, but she still does an amazing job here as the smart but still incredibly and impressionably young Little Rock. She outperforms everyone in her scenes, with the notable exception of Harrelson.

Although the movies does have problems, they are mostly trivial and don't overly affect the enjoyment of the film. Mostly, they are continuity errors, far too many to account for in print. Fortunately, IMDB maintains an extensive list of them, if you wanted to check them. Most of these could have been avoided, and can likely be attributed to the inexperience of director Ruben Fleischer and his crew, whether by haste or just plain error. . Obviously, if this movie had been made with a more experienced crew, perhaps these errors could have been avoided. Oh, well, woulda, coulda, shoulda.

I went into this film with no expectations and little idea as to the plot of the film, but even if I had, I'm not sure it would have altered the level of enjoyment I had during it's viewing. For a horror comedy, Zombieland doesn't skimp on the blood, gore and special effects, and manages that perfect balance of respecting the original source material while parodying it perfectly to fit the story. It's easily the best zombie film I've seen since Zack Snyder's 2004 Dawn of the Dead, and I'd heavily recommend to anyone interested in the genre as a humorous aside to the more serious Romero flicks. Toss in a hilarious cameo from one of the funniest actors alive, gut-wrenching laughs and more zombies than you can unload a shotgun at, and you've got one of the few movies from last year that I'd watch again and again without hesitation.