Category Archives: Movie Reviews – H

REVIEW: “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire”

by

41

HUNGER POSTER

The 2012 film “The Hunger Games” launched a new movie franchise to the tune of almost $700 million at the box office. It was based on Suzanne Collins’ equally popular book series – one that I had never heard of prior to the film’s announcement. The story is dystopian science fiction and it examines themes such a class disparity, oppression, and the infatuation with reality television. It wasn’t a perfect movie but it stood head and shoulders above other popular film franchises aimed at this age group. With a good cast locked in and the groundwork laid for a fairly interesting premise, the inevitable sequel had a lot of potential and expectations.

“The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” hit theaters with even bigger fanfare than the first film. It raked in over $860 million and received hearty praise from critics. Personally I felt there was room to improve from the first film, but I didn’t expect to find a significantly better movie. I really enjoyed “Catching Fire” and I was impressed at how many trappings it avoided. So often movies of this type and sequels in general make the same mistakes which more often than not lowers the quality of the film. “Catching Fire” does several things better this time around and it starts with the story.

CATCHING1

This film begins shortly after Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) have won the 74th Annual Hunger Games. The two have returned to District 12 where Katniss has convinced her local boyfriend Gale (Liam Hemsworth) that her “love” for Peeta was just an act to survive the games. She is paid a surprise visit by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) who informs her that she and Peeta will be going on a victors tour to the other districts. He also expresses displeasure in her defiant actions during the games which have fueled a rising underground rebellion against his Capitol. He intends to use the tour to influence public opinion but in secret he feels the only way to solve his problem is to kill Katniss.

Woody Harrelson returns as the goodhearted boozer Haymitch and Elizabeth Banks is back as Effie, the queen of gaudy fashion overkill. The two clearly have affections for Katniss and Peeta and they both understand the danger and intensity of their situation. They try to prepare the two victors for the tightrope they must walk between energizing the revolution and bringing the wrath of President Snow to their home district. Director Francis Lawrence does a great job of ratcheting up the tension during this part of the story and the stakes are raised particularly when some of the tour stops to oppressed districts don’t go as planned.

CATCHIN2

The story then takes a sharp turn with the out-of-the-blue announcement of the Third Quarter Quell. Basically ever 25 years the Hunger Games are “celebrated” with a special set of rules that normally serves the Capitol’s interests. President Snow decides that the 75th games will consist only of past winners. Since Katniss is the only female to win from District 12 she is automatically put into the games which Snow hopes will take care of his little problem. For me this is where the movie does spin its wheels a little. In what felt like a slight retread from the first film, we go back through the glitzy chariot presentations of the players, their appearances on Stanley Tucci’s whacky talk show, and the showcase of their skills before the bigwigs. It doesn’t play out as long as it did in the first film but I did find myself anxious for things to movie along.

But once the games do start the film gets right back on track. There are a number of interesting twists and angles that come from a variety of different directions. That is what provides the film with its own identity. “Catching Fire” maintains the grand scope and ominous threat of the first film, but it magnifies it and then takes it into its own place. A lot of it has to do with the progression of Collins’ story, but I give a lot of credit to Francis Lawrence’s direction and the screenplay from Simon Beaufoy and Michael duBruyn.

CATCHING3

It also helps that the acting takes a step up. Lawrence is fabulous and I would take this performance over her good but generic work in “American Hustle”. She is the heart and soul of the film and her abilities to sell her character both emotionally and physically are vital. I also think Josh Hutcherson make significant strides. His acting was a weakness in the first film but both he and Liam Hemsworth make obvious improvements. It was also great seeing some new characters played by really talented actors. Philip Seymour Hoffman (in what is one of his final roles) shows up as Snow’s new Gamemaker. I also really liked Jeffrey Wright as a studious fellow games participant.

I enjoyed the first film of this popular franchise even though I didn’t think it was great. That alone was enough to make me curious about “Catching Fire”. What I didn’t expect was to be completely enthralled in it from start to finish. “Catching Fire” is a big budget franchise entry that manages itself well and pulls off what many are incapable of doing. It not only adds to the groundwork laid by its predecessor, but it improves on it in nearly every area. And perhaps this movie’s biggest trick was to make ME thoroughly interested in what happens next. That of itself was a major accomplishment.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Her”

by

31

HER POSTER

In the not too distant future of Spike Jonze’s “Her” technology has made major leaps, fashion senses have eroded, and Hollywood’s cynical views of relationships have remained the same. Loaded with ambition and lauded by many as the best movie of 2013, “Her” incorporates a familiar science-fiction concept into what is more or less a love story and relational study. But it’s far from conventional or cliché. That said, it isn’t a film free of problems which (for me) ultimately keep it from being the modern day masterpiece that some are touting it as.

The story revolves around Theodore Twombley (Joaquin Phoenix), a nerdy introvert who works as a letter writer for people who have a hard time sharing their feeling. Theodore is a lonely soul. He’s currently involved in divorce proceedings from his first wife Catherine (Rooney Mara) and he hasn’t been able to get out of his ever-present state of melancholy. He has practically no social life and outside of his longtime friend Aimee (Amy Adams), there is no significant person in his life.

HER2

Theodore’s life takes a strange and unexpected turn when he purchases a new operating system for his computer. But this is no Windows XP. It is an adaptive artificial intelligence that evolves and takes on its own personality. The OS (voiced by Scarlett Johansson) goes by the name Samantha and soon develops a very personal and intimate relationship with Theodore. Samantha begins to fill the lonely void in Theodore’s life while he becomes her window to a new and exciting world. But the reality that she is an operating system causes him to wrestle with the legitimacy of their relationship.

The science-fiction mainly serves as a subtle backdrop with the exception of the familiar idea of computers becoming sentient. But Jonze deserves credit. He’s really doing a lot more here than first looks might reveal. He takes an interesting look at our infatuation with our gadgets and where that could perceivably lead us in the future. There is also a strong focus on communication or lack thereof. The film shows us several relationships that struggle due to the poor abilities to communicate. And speaking of struggles, prepare for a lot of them. In Jonze’s gloomy view of love, nearly every relationship struggles and has a rare hope for survival.

Her3

On the other hand, it’s the rich and unbridled conversations between Theodore and Samantha that causes their relationship to flourish. There are so many scenes of them just talking about simple things that may seem inconsequential but that are vital to making a relationship work. Phoenix is amazing and completely wraps himself up in his character. He displays an enormous range of feelings with such realistic fervor. And Johansson shows why voice work is deserving of more attention than it’s given. Her voice is sultry and sexy but it’s also warm and vulnerable. These two show a deep and growing attraction, yet even here we see Jonze use a little bait and switch.

But while I really appreciate Jonze’s originality and I love being challenged by deeper thought-provoking approaches, there were a handful of things that kept me from fully embracing this as a great film. First there is the movie’s glacial pacing specifically in the second half. The aforementioned conversations between Theodore and Samantha are good at first, but they reach a point where they no longer move the story along. The countless closeup shots of Phoenix laying on a pillow talking to Samantha well after their love has been established grew a bit tiresome. This only slowed things down for a movie that already had a calculated and deliberate pace.

HER1

The film also contains some unneeded scenes that added little to the movie. Olivia Wilde pops up as Theodore’s blind date. While her presence had a purpose, she was a very flimsy, throwaway character. There is also a weird scene where Samantha calls on a surrogate to serve as her physical body in order to be intimate with Theodore. It’s an intentionally uncomfortable scene laced with a touch of dark humor. But as it plays out things get sloppy especially with the surrogate character herself. And then there are these occasional odd tone-shattering attempts at humor. One involves a lewd act with a dead cat’s tail and the other features a cartoony video game character who suddenly spews a river of obscenities. This silly juvenile humor came across as cheap and both scenes felt completely out of place.

I wish I could toss aside those complaints because “Her” does many things right. It asks some great questions and it certainly allows for a variety of interpretations. For example take the ending. Depending on your interpretation it could be a very light and hopeful ending or a very dark and depressing one. I liked that. I love the work we get from Phoenix and Johansson and Rooney Mara’s character added a deeper emotional twist that I really responded to. But the film’s cynicism, the constant lingering of the second half, and some questionable script choices hurt my experience. It’s one of the few movies that captivated me yet had me checking my watch before it was done. Ultimately that’s a disappointing combination that pushed me away a bit.

VERDICT – 3 STARS

REVIEW: “The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug”

by

36

HOBBIT poster

Excitement, intrigue, skepticism, and division. These are just some of the words that describe the reactions to Peter Jackson’s “The Hobbit” trilogy. Was there enough material to stretch out into three films? Was there enough character depth? I’m certain you’re familiar with all of these debates and concerns. With the tablesetting done in the first film, the attention now turns to the second installment. In many ways this is the film that will tell whether the trilogy decision was a mistake. With the first movie set around introduction, does the second film have enough meat-and-potatoes to satisfy an audience especially considering Jackson’s format of near 3 hour movies.

The short answer to that question is an emphatic yes. “The Desolation of Smaug” is another huge sprawling Middle-Earth epic loaded with special effects and ambition. Better yet, it’s actually a nice step up for the trilogy. The film carries with it a true sense of adventure and I felt a much greater sense of urgency and peril than in the first film. These were big reasons why I really liked “The Desolation of Smaug”. While the first Hobbit picture was a fun and entertaining experience, I felt it lacked the big dynamic threat or plot driving exigency. That’s certainly not the case here.

HOBBIT1

After a strange but brief opening flashback, the story picks up right where the last film left off. Gandolf, the hobbit Bilbo, Thorin Oakenshield and his twelve fellow dwarves continue their quest to retake their home within The Lonely Mountain. Hot on their trail is the pale orc Azog and his troops. Their journey takes them through cursed forests, ancient runs, and expansive mountains. They encounter skinchangers, giant spiders, elven warriors, and of course a deadly fire-breathing dragon named Smaug. The urgency grows, the stakes get higher, and by the end we are set up for what should be a tremendous final chapter.

I have to admit I was really surprised at just how well the story moves along and how much ground is covered. I’ll admit there were a couple of points where things slowed down a tad and Jackson does buy some time while his camera pans around admiring the beautiful scenery or impressive set pieces. But as a whole these things didn’t bother me. The story is compelling and the excitement moves from one great action sequence to another. The best is an amazing barrel escape down a white rapid river as an army of orcs attack our heroes from the shores. It’s an incredible spectacle to watch.

HOBBIT3

I think the decision to include sections from Tolkien’s “The Return of the King” appendices was a key reason this worked. Having read neither “The Hobbit” nor the “Lord of the Rings”, I can’t say how well the film melds the contents of both books. But from a cinematic standpoint the appendices do a great job of not only adding more content and weight to the story but also connecting it to the three “Lord of the Rings” films. Some have taken issue with this creative choice but for me it worked very well and it helps bring together Jackson’s massive cinematic universe. There is a clear link being formed between the two trilogies which go beyond simple references. Old favorite Legolas (Orlando Bloom) has an action-packed presence in this film. The true corrupting influence of the ‘one ring’ begins to surface. And there are several other cool connections that I wouldn’t dare spoil.

Once again the characters of the story are a real treat. Ian McKellen is great as always although he is given a few too many overly dramatic lines. You know the ones – the camera zooms in on his face and he utters an intense one-liner about the peril that lies ahead. Martin Freeman hits another home run as Bilbo. There is a real transformation (both good and bad) going on in the character and Freeman’s performance wonderfully captures that. But perhaps my favorite performance again comes from Richard Armitage as Thorin. This strong but emotionally driven character is tough as nails but he is constantly trying to reign in his sorrow, anger, and thirst for revenge. It’s a great character and a great performance.

HOBBIT2

But there are also some really good new characters introduced. Evangeline Lilly plays Tauriel, a headstrong elf who can certainly hold her own. Then there is Luke Evans who plays Bard, a single father who finds himself thrust into the middle of Thorin’s quest. Both have significant roles and add a lot to the picture. I also like Lee Pace’s small but intriguing part as an Elvenking from Mirkwood. And then there is Benedict Cumberbatch who voices Smaug the fearsome, treasure-hoarding dragon. There simply couldn’t have been a greater choice than Cumberbatch. Then you have the twelve other dwarves. Thankfully we do see an expanded role for a couple of them, but unfortunately the majority of them remain indistinct making empathy for them rather tough.

So let me get back to the original debate. Could “The Hobbit” story be told in two films? Probably so. Am I glad they expanded it to three by adding content from “The Lord of the Rings”? Absolutely! “The Desolation of Smaug” is a solid answer to the questions and criticisms thrown its way. The special effects are superb, the action sequences had my heart racing, the stakes are high, and we spend more time with these wonderful characters. On the flip-side there are a couple of lulls and the indistinct tag-along dwarves still bug me. But those gripes do little to hurt the overall experience and Peter Jackson has me hooked for what the third installment will bring. It should be a blast.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “The Hunt”

by

39

HUNT POSTER

I’m a huge fan of Danish actor Mads Mikkelsen. Known as one of those familiar faces, Mikkelsen is an immensely talented actor who has shown a tremendous range. He’s tackled everything from period action pictures to emotional dramas; mythological fantasy to being a James Bond villain. He’s an undeniable presence in whatever he is in and his success, particularly in his native Denmark, is well deserved.

All of that should help explain my excitement for his film “The Hunt”. Original released overseas in 2012, “The Hunt” received a great response with most of the praise going to Mikkelsen’s performance. In fact, Mikkelsen would go on to win the Best Actor award at the 2012 Cannes Film Festival. With all of that in mind and with my expectations through the roof, naturally I was expecting something special and that’s exactly what writer-director Thomas Vinterberg gives us.

HUNT 1

“The Hunt” is that rare film that aims to engage us emotionally while at the same time challenging those very emotions. It spurs self-inspection and analysis by casting spotlights on some ugly but very real elements of society. It causes us to question how we would feel or respond amid certain difficult situations. And it’s all woven within the fabric of a riveting narrative that is some of the best storytelling I’ve seen in a while. It’s a story that’s uncomfortable and may cause us to squirm, but sometimes that’s exactly what we need to do.

Mikkelsen plays Lucas, a divorced kindergarten teacher living in a close-knit Danish town. When Lucas angers a 5-year old student (who also happens to be the daughter of Lucas’ best friend) the young girl goes to the kindergarten supervisor and accuses Lucas of sexual misconduct. Of course the supervisor must act but she does so under the presumption of absolute guilt. Her constant mishandling of the situation sparks an inferno of canards and assumption which sweeps through the town fueling a vitriolic reaction from the community. There’s no hunt for truth. Lucas becomes the hunted and there is no fact or clue that will pull him out of some people’s crosshairs.

“The Hunt” creates a striking antithesis. On the surface we see a lovely tight-knit community during the holiday season. Festive family get-togethers and Christmas parties create an aura of small town charm. But underneath lies a conflict rooted in reality that sees otherwise decent people doing and saying horrible things. It would be easy to say we hate these people, but as heinous as their actions are, would we have acted or thought differently when faced with such an emotionally charged situation? That’s a question the movie tackles head-on.

HUNT2

The utterly brilliant screenplay is both smart and provocative yet even it needed a capable lead actor to make it truly effective. Mads Mikkelsen more than fulfills that need. It’s a very restrained performance but also one of the most powerful in recent memory. The layers of persecution brought by the town’s rush to judgement takes more and more of a toll on Lucas and Mikkelsen draws out every detail with absolute precision. It’s a master class in dramatic acting and easily one of the best performances of the year. There is some good supporting work as well but Mikkelsen is the true star of the picture.

“The Hunt” can be difficult to watch. It’s confrontational and unflinching. Yet its thought-provoking questions are soaked in realism and relevance. But this is also a film made with expert craftsmanship. The script is intelligent and penetrating. The pacing is perfect. The camerawork is vivid and fluid. Then there is the lead performance from Mikkelsen – a true highlight of the movie year. It took me a while to finally see “The Hunt” but it was well worth the wait. It’s not a film that will leave you with the warm and fuzzies, but it does cut to the heart and it is expert filmmaking through and through.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Haute Cuisine”

by

13

Haute_Cuisine Poster

I’m not a person who cares about cooking shows or who spends a ton of time watching The Food Network. But if you do then I can imagine that you will find a lot to like in the new French film “Haute Cuisine”. But you don’t have to be a food aficionado to find enjoyment in director Christian Vincent’s tasty concoction. There’s a lot to like despite its few structural issues that ultimately keep it from being even better than it is.

“Haute Cuisine” is loosely based on the true story of Danièle Delpeuch and her surprise appointment as private chef to French President François Mitterrand. Here the lead character is Hortense Laborie (Catherine Frot), a well regarded chef living on the French countryside. She is brought to Paris where she reluctantly accepts the President’s appointment as his private chef. Once there Hortense faces a variety of obstacles including the male-dominated main kitchen, overly concerned Presidential staffers, and a ridiculous level of formality.

We are told her story through a bit of fractured storytelling. The movie starts with Hortense preparing her last meal of sorts for the workers at a French Research facility in Antarctica. A snoopy Australian reporter learns that she was once the private chef to the French president. Believing there must be a scandalous reason for her move from luxury and prominence to austerity and isolation, the reporter begins seeking out the story which we are told via flashbacks.

HAUTE1

Hortense is a confident and spunky woman. She takes her cooking seriously whether at a remote station or the royal palace. Back in Paris this quickly annoys some people yet endears her to others. As the flashbacks started I remember fearing that the movie was about to fall into a familiar, overused formula. Actually it never does. Hortense never becomes one of those ‘fight the system’ comic characters that we get in a lot of American movies. She’s very different than that and she maintains a sympathetic and relatable personality through the entire picture.

Another plus is that the film doesn’t fall into the customary biopic trappings. It’s certainly based on a true story, but it clearly wants you to know it is its own story. Even the character’s name changes separate it and helps free it from the constraints that strict biographical movies are held by. I really liked that.

But without a doubt the film’s greatest strength is found in Catherine Frot. She is simply fabulous and gives one of my favorite performances of the year. In one scene she has her character commanding the kitchen. In the next scene we see her shuttering under the pressures of her new responsibilities. Frot easily sells it all through her genuine and measured performance.

haute-02

Unfortunately “Haute Cuisine” does have a few blemishes that I just couldn’t give passes to. First, the storytelling is a bit clunky specifically in the opening and ending of the flashback story. She arrives in Paris and is more or less tossed into her new position with very little explanation or buildup. That’s not a big deal because the movie is focused on a specific time frame. But I did find it a bit jarring. The wrapup of the flashback story was somewhat worse. It basically just ends with several questions up in the air and a couple of character loose ends. The film also features A LOT of gastronomic lingo that die-hard food fans will probably love. And I do mean A LOT! I often had no clue what they were talking about which was a little frustrating.

Aside from those gripes “Haute Cuisine” really worked for me. And while the flashback conclusion may have left me wanting more, the film’s main ending was fantastic and left me completely satisfied. This is a film full of charm, a touch of humor, and one great performance from Catherine Frot. It may not be saying anything big or provocative, but it certainly accomplishes what it sets out to do.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “House at the End of the Street”

by

32

House-at-the-End

Am I starting to sense a trend here? Have you noticed that after getting some serious critical acclaim a number of young actresses are immediately running out to do soft PG-13 horror pictures? After really finding her way onto the critics radar with “Martha Marcy May Marlene”, Elizabeth Olsen quickly followed it up with “Silent House”. After making a huge splash in 2011 and giving what may end up being an Oscar-winning performance in 2012’s “Zero Dark Thirty”, Jessica Chastain started off 2013 with “Mama”. And then there’s “House at the End of the Street”. Jennifer Lawrence first wowed critics with “Winters Bone” and then blew up the box office with “The Hunger Games”. She followed it by dipping her toes into the horror genre with a film that’s decent enough and relatively harmless, but that still feels like a quick money draw from her recent success.

Lawrence plays Elissa Cassidy, a high school student who moves to a small wooded town with her recently divorced mother Sarah (Elisabeth Shue). They get a great deal on a beautiful home and they later find out why. It seems the property values have gone down following the gruesome murders of a couple in the house next door. Elissa and Sarah begin to find out more about the murders from the locals. But there is the question of what is fact and what is just gossip? They learn that the couple’s son Ryan (Max Thieriot) is living alone in the house. He’s been ostracized by many in the community and he’s the subject of so many rumors and speculations. He becomes the centerpiece of much of the film’s mystery.

Obviously Jennifer Lawrence is the real draw here and as you would expect she does a good job. But I have to say this isn’t challenging material. She does a lot of the same old stuff that you would expect from a movie like this. About the only opportunity she gets to flex her acting muscles are in the scenes with Shue. Elissa and Sarah don’t have the best relationship and the film’s better dramatic moments are when these two are hashing it out. Unfortunately we don’t get to much of it. As good as these moments are, they’re just thrown in here and there and they feel like an afterthought.

house_at_the_end_of_the_street1

While “House at the End of the Street” is advertised as a horror movie and it does have its moments of standard horror fare, in many ways it feels more like a thriller – not a great one, but a thriller nonetheless. Other than a couple of sudden blasts of loud music, the film doesn’t have any genuine scares. And it never really succeeds in creating the tense and creepy atmosphere it shoots for. But this isn’t a terrible movie. I actually found myself interested in the secrets and twists surrounding the murders in the house next door. The story also remains entertaining despite some obvious plot holes and unintentional silliness. I was never bored and I appreciated some of what the filmmakers were trying to do.

I think the biggest problem with “House at the End of the Road” is that it’s an aggressively average movie. There’s not one thing that it does exceptionally. On the other hand there are very few egregious and crippling flaws. It’s not a horrible movie but it doesn’t do anything to set itself apart. That’s why it’s a decent movie to check out on DVD on a rainy day. But expect to have forgotten all about it the next day. It’s a ‘one-and-done’ film in my book but it’s a fairly entertaining one. It just has no staying power and it won’t challenge you with anything bold and new. It turns out to be more of the same and that’s a shame.

VERDICT – 2.5 STARS