Category Archives: Movie Reviews – H

REVIEW: “The Hunger Games”

by

15

With this week’s release of the incredibly popular “The Hunger Games” on DVD and Blu-Ray, I had a chance to see it for a second time. I thought it would be fun to share my review of the movie again for those who may be newer to my blog. What are your thoughts on this much talked about picture? Were the odds ever in your favor as you sat down to see what all the hype was about? Here’s my take.

It’s been called the next big thing at the movies. It’s projections point to an opening weekend of around $150 million. Fans are filling theaters with anticipation. With such hype and expectations, how is it that I had never heard of “The Hunger Games” before seeing its first movie trailer? Expected to be the first in a profitable series, “The Hunger Games” is based on a series of novels written by Suzanne Collins. It’s a dystopian science fiction film that’s based on a preposterous premise yet it manages to be strikingly entertaining.

With the “Twilight” series mercifully set to end later this year, “The Hunger Games” is looked at as the next big franchise and has even drawn some misguided comparisons to the romantic vampire versus werewolf films. But there are several things that separate “The Hunger Games” from the “Twilight” series. First, this film opens itself up to a much broader audience. The movie embraces several good sci-fi and action elements that should appeal to a wider variety of moviegoers. ”Twilight” made millions but had a much more restricted target audience. Also “The Hunger Games” made a point to bring in quality performers and it really shows in the finished product. The acting is head and shoulders above the teeth gnashing performances in “Twilight”. In other words, “The Hunger Games” has more to offer than many of the other popular multi-million dollar series.

The movie takes place in Panem, a nation broken up into 12 districts. It’s a futuristic world that features a capital city filled with advanced technology surrounded by landscapes that resemble the Ozark or Smokey Mountains. The power and affluence are confined to the Capitol while the outer districts are filled with poverty-stricken villages struggling to survive.  We learn that years ago there was an uprising in the districts that resulted in a strong militaristic response from the Capitol. After quenching the uprising, The Capitol instituted “The Hunger Games”, an annual competition that required each district to provide one boy and one girl between the ages of 12 and 18 to compete against each other in a survival fight to the death. There would be only one winner and that winner would receive fame and glory. The games were intended to serve as a lifelong punishment for the district’s uprising and to show the twisted view of mercy and forgiveness of the Capitol.

To add yet another warped component to the story, The Hunger Games have become a Super Bowl like event. Much like 1987′s “The Running Man”, citizen’s throughout the capital city watch and cheer the games like they would a major sporting event. Special events and talk shows centered around the participants and leading up to the games are soaked up by the heartless and blood-thirsty Capitol crowds. In contrast, those watching in the outer districts do so not out of sport but out of concern for their loved ones. The movie goes all out to show a stark economic and moral difference between the wealthy city people and the poor district citizens. It’s a contrast that looks to play a bigger role in the future films.

The movie starts inside the very poor District 12. Jennifer Lawrence plays Katniss Everdeen, a tough 16-year old girl forced to take care of her mother and little sister Prim (Willow Shields) after the death of her father. The sisters gather together with the other kids from their district for what’s called “The Reaping”, a random drawing to find out who will represent the district as “tribute” in the year’s games. When a terrified Prim is chosen, Katniss steps in and volunteers in her sister’s place. Joining Katniss from District 12 is a baker’s son named Peeta (Josh Hutcherson). The two are shuttled to the Capitol where they are prepped and paraded around until the day for the games is upon them.

You can’t talk about “The Hunger Games” without talking about Jennifer Lawrence’s performance. A lot of great young actresses tried out for the role including Saoirse Ronan, Chloe Moretz, Hailee Steinfeld, and Shailene Woodley. But Lawrence was chosen and she was the perfect choice. Since I first saw her in her Oscar nominated role in “Winter’s Bone”, she’s been one of my favorite young actresses. Here she gives a strong and committed performance that feels true and authentic. In fact, she often times rises above the material and when the story goes a little off-track she manages to elevate it and carry it on her shoulders. It’s a brilliant performance and she fleshes out every quality of her character that you would expect.

Lawrence is joined by a nice supporting cast including Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, a bumbling boozer who is the only survivor to ever come out of District 12. Stanley Tucci is great as Caesar, the voice of The Hunger Games. He hams it up with his wild blue hair and huge grin but he’s also a bit slimy and disturbing. Elizabeth Banks plays Effie, a Capitol liaison to District 12 and Lenny Kravitz plays a stylist who has the job of making Katniss and Peeta make a good impression. We even get Donald Sutherland delivering his signature overly dramatic but perfectly effective lines as the sinister President Snow. While these supporting performances are quite good, some of the younger actor’s work doesn’t quite measure up.

The story itself captures a lot of what makes for good science fiction. It also does a nice job building up the tension leading up to the start of the games. I also saw myself emotionally caught up in several of the movie’s more heart-felt scenes. The action sequences aren’t as plentiful as some have advertised and the violence is strategically edited to ensure the PG-13 rating. But I did find watching teenagers hack each other up, some with pretty flippant attitudes, to be a bit uncomfortable. I also felt the tributes (the Hunger Games participants) to be inconsistently written. Several are introduced in a way that makes you think they are significant but they meet their demise in fairly meaningless fashion. Better writing could have made the tributes (aside from a small handful) feel more important therefore giving the games themselves a lot more weight.

There were also a few head-scratching moments in the story. Throughout the preparation leading up to the games, everything seemed to focus on making a good impression in order to gain sponsors needed for survival. The wardrobes, the introductions, the interviews – everything was for the purpose of sponsors. But during the games, sponsorship didn’t have much of an impact at all which made all the posturing seem pointless. I also couldn’t help but wonder what a society would find entertaining about kids having a survival fight to the death. Look, I understand that they were sick and morally bankrupt people. But a 12-year old little girl in a competition to the death shouldn’t be that interesting even to the most twisted and perverse individuals.

But even with a story’s occasional clunkiness, there’s something that drew me into the world of “The Hunger Games”. From the very start, I found the film created a futuristic society and sociopolitical environment that was surprisingly realistic even though it’s science fiction. I also felt the film’s fluid pacing helped create several moments of genuine tension that had me on the proverbial edge of my seat. There are also several heart-wrenching and emotional scenes that never felt fake or manufactured. And while the ending was a little underwhelming, it puts in place several intriguing possibilities for the next film. “The Hunger Games” is a movie that could have been better with a little more polished and thought-out script. But it’s also a film that puts together a disturbing yet enthralling world that I was totally caught up in. Combine that with an amazing performance from Jennifer Lawrence and some strong supporting work and you have the groundwork for a very satisfying franchise. May the odds ever be in our favor as this series moves forward.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

REVIEW: “Higher Ground”

by

0

Vera Farmiga has proven herself to be one of the most gifted and proficient actresses in Hollywood. In “Higher Ground” she once again shows off her acting chops but it also marks her directorial debut. It’s a thoughtful and sometimes challenging film that takes a more candid look at spirituality and how life’s difficulties make true faith seem out of reach. It’s also a story of decisions and the consequences that follow. It tackles some weighty religious issues but also looks at social troubles such as drug use, infidelity, and divorce. But at it’s heart, “Higher Ground” is the story of one woman’s conflict between the faith she envies and the lack of faith she feels.

Farmiga plays Corinne, a married mother of two who has watched her life take several drastic changes in direction. She was raised in church but was led away by her rebellion. After some poor choices lead to a premature pregnancy and marriage, she’s brought back to God by a near tragic accident. The family dedicates themselves to a small local church and we watch as Corinne grows in her personal relationship with God. But an inner conflict grows within as she struggles to see God’s hand in some truly difficult circumstances. She asks tough questions with genuine motivations and most of the picture focuses on her search for clarity. Corinne is a very earnest woman and Farmiga makes her believable and relatable regardless of your religious convictions. It’s a beautiful performance that drives the entire film and never shortchanges the character.

When it comes down to it, “Higher Ground” plays it pretty safe. It’s constructed in a way that different people can take away different conclusions largely based on their personal beliefs on Christianity and faith. The story certainly doesn’t target Christianity but neither does it shy away from asking some fairly provocative questions.  While at times it tries to paint faith into a corner and make Christians seem naive and disconnected, it also shows the deception and disloyalty of the faithless world. It may dabble in the occasional stereotype, but overall it stays on an even course which should allow it to speak to different people.

Farmiga’s direction is subtle and steady. She lets the story unfold without any overwrought theatrics or emotional gimmickry. The film looks and feels grounded in reality and Farmiga maintains a steady, natural tone. There are a couple of instances where it abruptly shifts to a new scene, but otherwise it moves at a smooth pace. The Christians are often times depicted well but at other times I couldn’t help notice how much they resembled a group of hippies from Woodstock. There are also several attempts at humor that are actually quite funny, but there are others that feel terribly out-of-place in the picture. One example is Corinne’s close friend explaining her method of keeping her marriage fresh. It’s not particularly funny and I found it pulled me out of the film.

There’s a lot to like about “Higher Ground”. Farmiga shows that she is certainly capable behind the camera even though the movie has it’s shortcomings. It’s a little clunky in some areas and it’s characterizations aren’t always consistent. But it is a careful and sincere picture that I bought into from the start. It clearly wants to speak to both sides of the faith issue but it does so without delegitimizing either position. It’s an intelligent and thought-provoking picture that may not be the best film of the year, but it certainly works on many levels.

VERDICT – 3.5 STARS

“HAYWIRE” – 4 STARS

by

0

One the surface, a movie advertised as an action film starring a female MMA fighter and one time American Gladiator doesn’t exactly raise my anticipation level. But seeing the name Steven Soderbergh attached to the movie changed that. Many moviegoers who are unfamiliar with Soderbergh and who go see “Haywire” strictly due to the movie trailer may go away a little disappointed. I found the movie to be an entertaining and stylistic action thriller tightly wrapped in a snug 90 minute package.

Soderbergh’s fingerprints are all over “Haywire” and that’s one of the main reasons the movie works so well. Not only did he direct and shoot the picture but he also edited it and it doesn’t take long to notice his sharp visual style. While Lem Dobbs’ story is smart and concise, it’s Soderbergh who engages the audience with clever camera angles, several tension-filled long takes, and his strategic use of music and sound. He tells the story without many of the contrived devices we see in most modern action pictures. There aren’t loads of blood and constant gunfire. But there are some great hand-to-hand fight scenes where the camera pulls back, the music stops, and the audience is allowed to take it all in. It’s the perfect approach.

Another huge plus is the impressive and memorable lead acting debut of Gina Carano. Her character is pretty straightforward and doesn’t require a lot of range, but Carano holds her own with the strong supporting cast featuring Michael Fassbender, Michael Douglas, Ewan McGregor, Antonio Banderas, Channing Tatum, and Bill Paxton. She plays Mallory Kane, an ex-Marine who does contract black-ops work for Kenneth Jay (McGregor) a slimey character with government contacts. Kenneth teams her up with a suave British Agent (Fassbender) for a mission in Dublin. It would spoil things to go much more into detail but let’s just say things don’t go as planned.

The supporting cast is strong and polished, just as you would expect. But it’s Carano who gets the bulk of the screen time and she nails it. One of the best things is that she actually sells her character. Unlike many of the fashion show runway models we often see in lead roles, I had no trouble believing the more full-formed Carano was an ex-Marine or that she could kick some serious butt. And while she is larger than life in many respects, there are certain touches that made her more believable. There is one particular chase scene where she is running on the rooftops and she actually gets turn around. She doesn’t know which way to go and has to backtrack. It’s a small and subtle detail but the film is filled with them.

“Haywire” isn’t your typical January release. Often times January and February movies are those that get pushed back after awards season. But this a really fun and well crafted picture. It’s a film that causes the audience to think and stay focused from start to finish, yet it’s a thrilling and fun ride that uses style over cliche. It’s a fast moving and compact story and Soderbergh’s direction keeps everything running smooth. I enjoyed “Haywire” and it’s a really good way to start the movie year.

REVIEW – “Hugo”

by

0

Martin Scorsese has proven himself to be a fantastic filmmaker, creating some of the industries most memorable films. The Oscar winning director is responsible for such movies as “Taxi Driver”, “Gangs of New York”, “The Departed”, and most recently “Shutter Island”. But out of all the movies on Scorsese’s resume, none are quite like “Hugo”. It’s his first foray into the more family friendly genre and his first film shot in 3D. But’s it’s also a stellar example of what a master craftsman can do with a great story, large budget, and the latest technology.  Based on the Brian Selznick’s novel “The Invention of Hugo Cabret”, “Hugo” is a movie that resonates on nearly every emotional level while also offering one of the most visually stunning experiences you’ll have in a theater. It’s a near masterpiece.

“Hugo” is the story of a young orphan living within the walls of a Paris train station. Hugo (Asa Butterfield) spends time swiping parts from around the train station in order to fix a broken automaton left behind by his deceased father. Desperate and lonely, Hugo hopes that hidden inside of the automaton is a message from his father. He is befriended by an adventurous young girl named Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz) but runs afoul of her godfather Georges (Ben Kingsley). We also spend time with several wonderful characters from around the train station. There’s the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen), a florist (Emily Mortimer), a book store owner (Christopher Lee), and more. These characters not only give the station life and vibrancy, but each have there own little role to play in Hugo’s story.

While the story is beautifully crafted, it’s the performances that drive it. Butterfield is very convincing as Hugo and he really amazed me with his emotional range. Even more impressive was Moretz. She’s energetic, charming, and lights up the screen. Kingsley gives another brilliant performance that deserves serious Oscar consideration and Cohen offers plenty of laughs while also showing a sad, pitiful side to his character. There is not one bad performance in the picture and Scorsese manages his actors with precision. These performances are perfect compliments to his directing style.

While this isn’t the sort of material you would usually relate to Scorsese, he handles it with the exact same care and detail as any of his other pictures. Even with it’s big imagination and sometimes fantasy feel, this is a story that seems deeply personal to the director and he pours out affection on every scene. His vision of 1930s Paris grabbed me from it first gorgeous sprawling shot and through every intricate detail found in the architecture, wardrobes, dialogue, and mannerisms. Scorsese’s use of the camera and his ability to set up shots is impeccable and the way he use’s 3D gives me hope for the technology. It’s worth noting that this is a movie you should see in 3D. With so many cheap conversions and cash grabs out there, Scorsese gives us the most visually engaging use of 3D since Avatar. It’s at times subtle and other time jaw-dropping but always pleasing to the eye and immersive.

“Hugo” is a film that should strike a chord with any true movie lover. Not only is it expert storytelling and a visual master work, but it’s a tip of the hat to everything that makes movies such a great art form. Scorsese takes us back to the early days of silent cinema and shows the power and influence of film. There’s no way you can watch the second half of this movie and not have a stronger appreciation for motion pictures and the way it’s incorporated into Hugo’s story is practically flawless.

“Hugo” is a family friendly drama and a celebration of cinema all wrapped into one. It’s a movie for both adults and children yet it never caters specifically to either. It’s an intelligent and earnest picture that earns our tears at the end through it’s genuine sincerity and tenderness. It’s a visual marvel with the same signature camera work we’ve seen throughout Scorsese’s career and a dazzling use of 3D that gives the technology the shot in the arm it desperately needs. “Hugo” left me with one of the most satisfying experiences I have had in the theater. This may be Scorsese’s first dive into this new sandbox, but the result is one of the best films of 2011.

VERDICT – 4.5 STARS

4.5 STARS

“THE HELP” – 3.5 STARS

by

0

Perhaps the biggest box office surprise of 2011 was “The Help”. The Civil Rights era drama dominated movie theaters to the tune of over $200 million. Based on the immensely popular novel by Kathryn Stockett, “The Help” was adapted for the big screen and directed by the relatively unknown Tate Taylor who was born in raised in Jackson, Mississippi, the deep south city where the film takes place. The movie nicely recaptures that time period and setting both through the look and feel of the picture. You do get a genuine sense of familiarity from the director and it shows onscreen.

At it’s core, “The Help” is a story about racism and the obstacles that the black community faced during the early 1960′s. It particularly focuses on maids, women hired to do everything from cook meals to raise the children of well-to-do white people. These women, simply referred to as the help, earn next to nothing while facing all sorts of embarrassments and humiliations. This is potentially heavy material and the film gives us several strong, emotionally charged moments that you can’t help but be effected by. But the film also dabbles in caricatures, lapses into occasional shallowness, and spends a little too much time away from the truly powerful central story.

The film’s biggest strengths can be found in the mesmerizing performances of Viola Jones and Octavia Spencer. Jones’ Aibileen and Spencer’s Minny are both quite unique and layered characters. They are fascinating individuals and the movie is at it’s best when they are on the screen. I found myself particularly drawn to Spencer. She takes a character that could have been an over the top cliche and beautifully portrays her through a controlled and measured performance. Emma Stone is also good as Skeeter, a young writer returning home after graduating from Ole Miss. After seeing the treatment of the help by some of her town “friends”, Skeeter sets out to convince Aibileen and Minny to let her write about their experiences. There are also several fun but smaller roles featuring Jessica Chastain, Sissy Spacek, Mary Steenburgen, and Cicely Tyson.

While “The Help” works well in many areas, it also hits a few speed bumps. The most notable problem with the film is it’s almost cartoonish portrayal of several of the upper-class white woman. Bryce Dallas Howard plays the proverbial villain (for lack of a better term) and her character is so exaggerated that I could never take her seriously. I’m not sure if it’s her acting or the way her character is written but I tend to think it’s a little of both. We get glimpses of this from several other women but not on the same scale as Howard’s Hilly character. I don’t deny for one second that this type of racism existed or that it was a real obstacle that these African American women faced. But I would have loved to see these white women portrayed in a much more believable and sincere fashion.

I always say that you can’t compare a movie with the book it’s based on. A movie is in a different universe with an entirely different set of limitations. Tate does a good job of keeping the main thrust of the story in tact and spends most of the film focused on what makes this a good movie, the story of Skeeter, Aibileen, and Minny. But the movie does wander off into several more uninteresting directions that do more to take away from the central story than add anything to it. Whether it’s Skeeter’s underplayed and irrelevant romance or Celia’s failed pregnancies and rags-to-riches story, “The Help” sometimes tries to cram too much into too little of a space which leaves the film feeling a little bloated.

Even with a few flaws, “The Help” is a movie that manages to deliver some gripping and powerful scenes. It’s impossible to not be drawn to the main characters and the perfomances from Viola Jones and Octavia Spencer are stunning. The movie manages to maintain the strength of it’s central message even though it could have been stronger with more balanced and believable portrayals of certain characters. But I was moved by “The Help” and although it’s not the most polished and steady film of the year, it certainly deserves the money it has made and the attention it has garnered.