The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1

3 Stars (out of four)

So here we are!  The hugely anticipated final film of Suzanne Collins' The Hunger...oops.

So here we are!  The hugely anticipated almost final film of Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games series.  If I seem a bit jaded about this very cynical money grab, then you would be correct in your assumption.  It annoys me how blatant this is, to get our money.  But, that said, this movie is worth seeing.

We now join Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) as she deals with the after-effects of the Quarter Quell.  She has nightmares just about every night, but the revolution has begun.  The problem is that it is still in a fragile state and can be snuffed out quickly.  So the leaders of the revolution, President Alma Coin (Julianne Moore) and Plutarch (Philip Seymour Hoffman in his final role) ask her to become the face of the revolution in a series of propaganda films to steel people's resolve and fan the flames of the nascent insurgency.  But this would not be a story if Katniss wasn't difficult, so she hems and haws until she can't ignore it any longer.  But Katniss being Katniss, she agrees to do it for selfless reasons.  She insists that the insurgents save Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) and the other Tributes who have been taken by the Government and are being used for its own nefarious ends.  That's pretty much it.  Outside of the on again-off again love(?) relationship with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) which is still going on, and Katniss being the ever-changing tease who cannot make up her mind, not much else happens.  I guess we will have to wait until NEXT year before we find out.

Two things I really liked about this particular installment despite the griping I've already done.  Our new golden age of TV is beginning to teach the movies a lesson they forgot awhile ago.  That is, story actually does matter.  No matter how much pomp and circumstance you put in a film, it falls flat without a good story and characterizations.  (See Star Wars Episodes 1-3 on how NOT to do this) There is value to taking a break from all the action and catch our breaths for a moment.  These intimate moments matter because we have to relate to the protagonist in any situation.  That is what good storytelling is.  We must be emotionally invested in the story, not some detached observers to the events.  The emotional connection is key.  It used to be TV was the bastard stepchild of movies, and if you were a movie actor who had to work TV, it was a demotion, a sign your career was in trouble.  It is now almost the opposite.  A-List stars are now beginning to work TV because it is so good.  Shows like The Sopranos, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, True Detective, The Shield, Justified, Sons of Anarchy, even American Horror Story are showing what great storytelling can do, and I hope Hollywood moviemakers are being shocked out of their complacency.  If Mockingjay is any indication, it seems they are.  The movie has some great action pieces, no doubt, but it relies on Jennifer Lawrence to deliver the goods (which she does) to make us care about Katniss.  There are scenes of internal conflict with her that really resonate and save this movie from its somewhat simplistic plot.  Kudos to her.  It is easy to see why she is an Oscar winner at such a young age.  Despite the stellar cast, the movie fails without her performance.  She doesn't phone it in, which she could easily do with this.

The second thing I liked was the exploration of the motives behind revolutions, especially their leaders.  Just how real are they?  It is not a secret that propaganda is vital in times of stress, which we in the US seem to recoil from in these times.  In an increasingly interconnected world, it is easier and easier to put out a message, especially against a much stronger foe.  The astonishing success ISIL has had in recent months in recruitment from western countries with young people who grew up there is proof of this.  And while it is important to be able to defend yourself militarily, unless you are willing to wipe everybody out, the only way to fight an idea is with another idea.  The pen is mightier than the sword and all that.  Mockingjay speaks to the absolute importance of propaganda and at the same time criticizes its artifice.  Just how real are the leaders of any movement?  Are they cynically exploiting the ideals of others to get their way, or is it necessary to, in all respects, lie to your followers (or at least creatively bend facts) to get them to do what you need them to do?  The movie argues otherwise, but it is an interesting point to explore.  I, for one, enjoyed this little rabbit hole.  On a fun side note, there is a cute mini-acting class when Katniss does her first propaganda ad.  The different ways Lawrence delivers the lines is fun to watch and shows you how good actors can make the difference between stirring and blasé.

Overall, this movie is great and I cannot wait for the next one.  I would recommend it to anybody, but definitely watch the first two fbefore you see this film or you will be lost.

The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies

3.5 Stars (out of four)

Wow!  THIS is why we go to movies, or at least I do.  Big, bold and brassy.

For those of you living under a rock, this is the third movie of The Hobbit trilogy.  An approximately 300 page story that took as much times to tell as its its 1200 page sequel, The Lord of the Rings.  Lest you think this is a complaint, it's not.  I am not a Hobbit purist and I like the direction Peter Jackson has taken the series.   The movie takes up where the last one left off.  Smaug the dragon incinerates Laketown and is killed by Bart.  Because their homes have been destroyed, Laketown now goes to Thorin to give them what was promised so they can rebuild.  Thorin, at this point, has become mad with greed and will not honor any past agreements.  Through a huge series of events which I won't detail here (read the book dammit!  It's 300 pages long.  You can literally read it in one day.), armies of elves, dwarves and orcs all come to the same place and have it out in a 45-minute orgy of fighting.  Thorin dies.  Everyone's sad.  Bilbo goes home.  The end.

This is a tough review for me.  There isn't a lot to say other than AWESOME!  The story is not particularly complex.  The Hobbit is a children's book after all.  The trilogy cut it up into very bite-sized parts.  Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh filled in some more story from J.R.R. Tolkien's The Cimarillion to fill out the time, and while the purists hated it, I loved it.  I already knew the Hobbit, so it added a new layer of discovery for me which I enjoyed.  The other issue is that, frankly, Tolien was not that good a writer, so most of his books are a bit of a mess.  But he was a great creator and storyteller and made this world lush and amazing.  Jackson did a masterful job at bringing both stories to the screen and I'm glad he did.  He ties together the two trilogies beautifully at the end.  I must admit, when I saw the end, I shed a little tear. In was introduced to The Hobbit when I was seven, and it has been a part of my life ever since.  With this ending, this brings to a close about 37 years of waiting, and boy, was it worth it.  The only reason for it not getting four stars, is that it's a little simplistic and drives every point home in the first 30 minutes.  The other two hours is just more of the same.

I sometimes just love to sit in a theater and be totally entertained.  The Hobbit did exactly that. Not was grand, exciting, epic and most importantly, fun.  If you're not into the sto liken universe, it may not be for you.  For all you Lord of the Rings purists out there, get over yourself and join our reindeer games.  Stop being such dorks.  You can't have everything, but this comes close. Nor everyone else, strap yourselves in for one wild ride.  You'll thank me later, if you haven't already seen it.

Divergent

2.5 Stars (out of four)

I held off watching Divergent because I thought it would be another suckfest like Twilight.  It turns out I was sort of wrong, but something surprised me.  It actually kept my attention.

So, for those of you who do not know the story, it takes place in a futuristic Chicago, after a long and destructive war.  To keep the peace, mankind now lives in factions based on their talents to form a new society.  They are: Erudites-dressed in blue.  These are the intellectuals, scientists, etc.  Candor-dressed in white.  They speak the truth to the point of rudeness.  These are the judges.  Dauntless-dressed in black.  These are the most fearless.  They are the police and soldiers.  Amity-dressed in tan, these people are harmonious.  They are the farmers.  Abnegation-dressed in gray.  They are selfless and serving.  These are the leaders and public servants.  Our main character Beatrice (Shaileen Woodley) is the daughter of two prominent Abegnations.  She always felt out of place in her caste, preferring the Dauntless and their carefree life.  When children turn a certain age, they are tested to see which faction they fit in, which will be their family for the rest of their lives.  Faction over blood they call it.  There is no intermixing.  Despite whatever the test says, the person can choose their faction if they want, and the choice is for life.  Thus, the movie breaks its own rules.  If you leave a faction, you become factionless, essentially the homeless and dregs of society.  When Beatrice takes her test, she is a Divergent, one that doesn't fit into any faction.  This is a dangerous thing apparently, and she is told not to reveal it to anyone.  She chooses to become a Dauntless and meets her future love interest Four.  While she fights for her place in Dauntless, she finds out some dark secrets of which she may be in the center.

Okay, that sets it up.  I don't want to say much more to avoid spoilers.  So, this movie was an enigma to me.  I thought it was written by Stephanie Meyers (Twilight), but quickly realized the story is more complex than that, but not by much.  To be fair, it kept my attention, and it is pretty good.  I actually enjoyed it.  But that said, it is another movie trying to be more profound than it actually is.  It does have something to say, just not very well.  Again, to be fair, this was a story for younger readers and intended to start discussions.  Many women I know really seem to like this film and it's easy to see why.  Like the recent crop of stories to come out like The Hunger a Games, the female protagonist is strong and resourceful.  Why it seems only young people's stories where this is the case is beyond me.  The funny thing is, sci-fi and fantasy seem to be the only places where this is most acceptable.  I'm not saying there aren't great movies out there with strong women in other genres, but it seems to be in these two particular genres where it is prominent.  A quick test.  Which of these characters do not belong:  Ellen Ripley, Sarah Conner, Janeway, Leia Organa, Galadrial, Natasha Romanov, Katniss Everdeen, Thelma And Louise?  Why is it that it is so inconceivable for women to be tough and in charge except in very fictional universes?  A commentary on our societal attitudes?  Probably.

But back to Divergent.  While Shaileen Woodley is certainly attractive, she is downright homely compared to just about the entire cast in the flick, who all appear to have walked out of an Abercrombie ad.  Everyone else is movie star gorgeous except for the main character.  Again, a way to get young women to identify because of this dichotomy of looks?  Beatrice (or Tris, as she later calls herself), gets more glamorous as she comes into her own and understands herself.  Beauty is a metaphor for strength and something to be aspired to by scaling impossible heights.  If you don't, you're ugly and worthless like the factionless, which is the only caste in this entire film who are deserving of nothing but scorn from all factions.  Another issue I have with the film is its overly simplistic worldview.  That is: most people are easily categorized and put into a box.  While the movie is obviously taking the position this is not desirable, it fashions a society built on this premise.  Setting up castes that cannot be broken to control them.  It argues tribal rules workas a basis for society, which is apparent to anyone who follows the Middle East.  Sarcasm aside, while the movie says this is not an ideal set of affairs, it argues that it works.  Not something I necessarily agree with.

Two other issues I have with the film.  While it glamorizes the life in Dauntless at first, we see that it is essentially a prison-like environment where bullies rule and the weak are cut down.  These are supposed to be the guardians of society by giving themselves without question?  This is obviously a commentary on the military and police, that they are mindless automatons who never question authority and are thugs to be pointed in a direction to kill.  I found it a little distasteful, insensitive, and ultimately childish and naïve.  Finally, it portrays Erudites, the smart people as being cruel and conniving.  What is the deal with the vilification of smart people and a celebration of ignorance and stupidity as if it were some great ideal to aspire to?  I've never understood it.

To sum up, it is a good movie, especially to watch with older kids to discuss the fundamentals of human nature.  Not much really happens, so it looks like it was angling for a sequel.  It is not great, though.

Exodus: Gods And Kings

2.5 Stars (out of four)

I really, REALLY wanted this movie to be good.  And it is on some levels.  The story of Exodus is sweeping in scope and makes for great drama, never mind its biblical implications.  This is one of those stories that reverberates across the years because of its importance to the modern-day world.  Whether or not you believe in the Bible, the story of Moses cannot be denied due to its impact on today.  All three major religions accept it and it is arguably the beginning of Israel as a kingdom and now nation with all that that entails.  The movie was in the very capable hands of Ridley Scott, a director who, time and again, has proven to be a master storyteller of huge, epic tales.  I won't go into a plot synopsis because unless you have been under a rock your whole life, you know the story of Moses.  So what, exactly, went wrong with this film?

Well, let's first look at what went right.  It is a grand retelling of Exodus, with real scope and majesty.  The special effects are spectacular and convincingly portray the large events in Exodus, from the plagues to the parting of the Red Sea.  Everyone in the cast is great, with Christian Bale's portrayal of Moses and Joel Edgerton's Ramses as incredible standouts.  As they are the heart of the film, these performances were crucial, and if they didn't work, the movie falls apart.  There are large, expansive sets and scenes and spectacles that take your breath away, and Scott's great eye for capturing these moments was spot on.  The movie is big and ambitious and hits the mark for showmanship.

But what goes wrong with the film are the small parts.  Inevitably, this film will draw comparisons to The Ten Commandments, but it really should have tried for the beating heart of the animated The Prince of Egypt.  Exodus: Gods and Kings is so preoccupied with its epic scope, it forgets the drama of what is actually happening right in front of you.  A theme I was forced to return to again and again as I watched this film was intimacy, or rather, the lack of it.  The film has been taking its fair share of abuse from critics and audiences by saying it is essentially Gladiator (another Ridley Scott film) meets Moses.  The emphasis on action cheapens or totally obscures the real messages of the story, the whole reason to tell it in the first place.  While Ridley Scott is good at telling historical drama, most of his movies are fictitious painted against tableaux of real historical events (Gladiator, The Kingdom of Heaven, 1492: The Conquest of Paradise).  There are a lot of compelling things in Exodus.  Putting aside God for a moment, there are two powerful cousins as close as brothers ripped apart due to competing loyalties to each other and their motivations; Moses' exile and return to Egypt; Moses' story of his divided heritage; his adoption of a new culture and family far different from his upbringing; his discovery of his true identity and the effect that has on him; Ramses' divided loyalties between his brother and his responsibilities as Pharoeh; the actual exodus of the Jews out of four hundred years of slavery.  All of the things make for great drama, and none of them are addressed with any real emphasis other than the exodus itself.

All this potential great drama seems peculiarly cold and detached in the movie.  A good example is Moses' wedding night.  Before the consummate their marriage, we see the Moses and Sephora telling each other what their love means to each other in an oddly stilted manner, as if they are rehearsing wedding vows.  Compare this to the wedding night of Braveheart where in the morning, William Walkace's wife dresses him.  With this simple act, there is a very warm and human intimacy between the two that powerfully illustrates the deep love they have for each other.  While I don't doubt Moses loved his wife just as much, the scene just feels contrived.  They fall in love because the script says so, and now let's get back to the action in progress as quickly as possible.  The movie is replete with failed opportunities like this for us to connect with any of the characters on any human level with the exception of Ramses, who gets the most sympathetic treatment I've have ever seen of him.  In The Ten Commandments, for the most part, Yul Brynner has to play him almost as a comic book villain.  In Exodus, it is the exact opposite.  Ramses' character feels as one whom things are being heaped upon unfairly and elicits more than a small bit of sympathy.  In fact, he comes across as the most rational character in the story.

But for me, and for most people who will see this film, the most important, and glaring issue, is the almost complete omission of God.  The whole movie seems to be interested in demystifying the entire exodus story, to the point where God almost has no part in it at all.  And when he does show up, He is played as a petulant child by a very young actor (in one of the most bizarre plotline device and casting choices in movie history). Now, while it is true the God of the Old Testament is very different in actions from the God of the New, it is almost jarring how annoying they make Him here.  The God of the Old Testament tends to be more wrathful while the God of the New more loving in his actions.  But in this movie, God is most interested in revenge and retribution.  He scolds Moses time and again for his hesitancy to act, yet when Moses asks him, quite reasonably, why God has waited 400 years to act and why the urgency now, God lashes back at him in a hissy fit.  Then when Moses does act in an ultimately doomed insurgency, God tells him to sit down and shut up and begins the plagues.  Gone are any confrontations between Moses and Pharoeh and his court.  Gone are any indications that Moses is speaking for God at all.  In fact, the whole movie suffers from the Raiders of the Lost Ark story problem: Moses is incidental to anything that happens in the exodus.  It all happens despite him, and he is not an active participant in the events, so he has no effect on their outcome.  It is as if the filmmakers were so interested in telling a "realistic" and scientific version of the events (an admittedly interesting and apologetic idea), they forgot the deeper reason to tell the story in the first place: that is God actively helping establish a new nation for his Chosen People.  I know labels like this are scary to modern revisionists who don't believe in God, but this IS the reason for the story.  And while this movie is light years better than last year's spectacular crapfest Noah, Exodus: Gods And Kings still misses the mark. Is it worth watching?  Yes.  The movie should be told on an epic scope in a theater.  But ultimately, it will leave you unfulfilled as a story.  An interesting, but ultimately failed idea in the final analysis.

The November Man

2.5 Stars (out of four)

I really had high hopes for this film.  As a huge James Bond fan, this actioneer promised some pretty neat thrills and chills, a kind of James Bond meets Jason Bourne kind of thing.  The movie certainly delivers on the action.  The plot, well, that's another story entirely.

The November Man opens with a CIA team led by a very English-sounding Devereaux (Pierce Brosnan) leading a CIA team on a mission to protect the U.S. Ambassador in Montenegro from assassination.  Part of the team is Devereaux's protogė Mason (Luke Bracey).  Mason is still being trained to be an operative and although the mission is a success, Mason's impetuousness results in a child being killed.  We then fast forward 8 years to the present where we find Devereaux has retired and is running a cafe in Switzerland.  An old boss and friend visits him one day and asks for help in getting a source out of Russia, one of Devereaux's old cases.  This is an unsanctioned mission as the source is targeted for assassination by a CIA team, led by who we find out later to be Mason.  Devereaux accepts the assignment out of a personal responsibility he feels to protect her, but he fails.  But before she dies, she tells him there is a plot between a high-level CIA person and the Russian president-elect.  This sets off a dangerous cat-and-mouse game between Devereaux and the CIA, with the fate of the world in the balance.

As I have said many times in the past, story is everything.  Everything else can be right, but if the script is bad, the movie suffers no matter how good everything else is in the film (Star Wars prequels anyone?).  The sad thing is, this movie actually has great potential.  The story is sound and engaging. It has a couple of twists that are fun, and unlike many other films of this type, has something to say regarding issues of real importance today that seem to get forgotten.  In this case, one of the big underlying issues is the problem of human trafficking in Eastern Europe in particular.  A key witness was abducted for two years and she holds the key to CIA/Russia nexus.  But as good as the setup is, it goes off the rails quickly in the telling.  The problem is that the movie is not very good at exposition.  We are dropped right in the middle of a very complicated story without any real background on the motivations of anyone in the film and this leads to a lot of confusion.  The movie instead prefers to let us in on important details as surprise plot twists which, instead of being the point where you shout out, "Aha!  It all fits now!" to just further muddying the plot.  In this movie, motivations are extremely important to understand why things are happening.  Devereaux is on a kill-crazy rampage to try to find out why the source was killed in Russia.  He also seems very interested in humiliating Mason and helping him alternatively.  Mason, for his part, is alternatively trying to kill Devereaux and helping him.  It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.  It's as if the scriptwriters were writing as they go, making more and more preposterous leaps.

It's too bad this movie falls kind of flat.  There are some good stories in here.  If they would stick to one or two, it probably would have been a superior movie.  As it is, it is worth watching, but in the end, pretty disappointing from the letdown of how good it promised to be.

The Purge

2.5 Stàrs (out of four)

Considering The Purge's progeny (Paranormal Activity and Sinister, both very good horror films), I expected quite a bit when I sat down to watch it.  I have been holding off watching the movie for some time, thinking it would not be very good, and I was partially correct.

Thè Purge takes place in the near future in a rich suburbanite town.  America has a unemployment and violent crime rate that hovers somewhere around 1%.  This is because there is some new quasi-theocratic government running the United States, and every year, for 12 hours, the purge occurs.  As some kind of natural catharsis, all crime is legal, and all police and emergency services are suspended.  It is a sort of government-supported anarchy that theoretically gets the beast out of everyone by letting them fulfill their darkest desires.  The specific story is about a wealthy family who, during the purge, let in a homeless man who was wounded by some very unlikeable young punks who want to kill him for sheer sport.  They threaten the family that if they do not release the man, they will break in and kill everybody.  Eventually they do break in, but another twist throws a monkey wrench in those plans..,

So.  This is not exactly an original story.  Star Trek had an episode entitled Return of the Archons which was essentially the exact same scenario except it was called the Red Hour instead of the Purge.  In either case, both shows were making points about the thin veneer of civilization that covers our very brutal souls.  Each show suggests it will not take much to let that beast out.  They also posit that if everyone were able to live out their darkest fantasies of raping and killing anything they see for a certain period of time, that this will have some kind of therapeutic effect on a population.  Since Stár Trek comes from a much more optimistic worldview on human nature, Kirk says no to those inner demons, while acknowledging their existence.  He is on the side of civilization, and how that civilization is crucial to us as human beings.  Perhaps because we now live in a more cynical age, The Purge, while saying there may be unintended consequences to this activity, it will still go on.  Now, the movie is not suggesting this is an ideal set of events; far from it, actually.  But it does suggest it is a possible scenario.

As I stated before, this movie was brought to us by the same people who made the superior horror film Sinister, and like Sinister, it is filled with very disturbing imagery, especially when you consider the age of the perpetrators in both films.  But while Sinister is an unapologetic horror film that is very bleak, The Purge is attempting to be something more.  It is attempting to be a social commentary of sorts, in its own extremely ham-handed way.  The movie alternately posits that this is the natural outgrowth of a government based on religious principles.  It also a very class-conscious vehicle.  The homeless man is, of course, black and poor, and his attackers are privileged, white young people.  The film also says that the purge was made to eliminate the poor class as they do not have the means to defend themselves with sophisticated home defense systems.  So the movie is a white/black-rich/poor war scenario that seems straight out of The Turner Diaries.  And while I do applaud the writers for actually trying to say something more profound than a horror film, the philosophy behind it could be written by a twelve-year-old and has all the depth of a mud puddle.  It is obvious and brutish at every turn, and the final twist is mildly clever, but ultimately predictable.  It's The Stepford Wives meets Psycho, but has neither of these shows' understated nuance (yes, there is nuance in Psycho).

In the end, it comes down to the fact that the filmmakers were shooting for something profound and ultimately produced something hackneyed.  But they are to be commended for at least trying to say something, as we live in a jaded and apathetic time where moral relativism reigns.  It is trying to sound a warning klaxon in its own plodding way.  Like Paranormal Activity and Sinister, it is chock full of very disturbing and threatening imagery that is quite effective, making this a cut above its slasher kin.  But ultimately, it's the story that matters, and it falls a bit flat in this case.  It's disappointing really, considering how good the other two are.  They can't all be winners, I guess.  Now let the horrible sequels commence!

Foxcatcher

 3 Stars (out of four)

Foxcatcher was one of those films that is getting a lot of good press, but I am not so sure it deserves all the press it gets.  Most of the critics loved it, but I am so-so about it.

The story is actually pretty simple.  Based on true events, Channing Tatum and Mark Ruffalo play Mark and David Schultz, a champion brother wrestling team (both were Olympic gold medalists) who joined Team Foxcatcher, a team sponsored by John E. DuPont from the DuPont family for the 1988 Seoul Olympics.  Events take an unexpected turn with tragic results.

Based on a true story.  One critic wisely said those are some of the most dangerous words in cinema.  Obviously movies are not documentaries, nor are filmmakers historians, nor should they be.  But those five simple words have caused more misunderstandings of historical events because of the dictates of good storytelling.  But because of those five words, it gives any filmmaker a free pass on what they decide to show or use the story to push their political agenda under the guise of "It's not my fault.  It's a true story."  Because of the perceived realities of film, people take these stories literally and it causes a group misconception.  Shows like Argo, Blackhawk Down, and We Were Soldiers, with their differing levels of liberties taken with people and events make me question the authenticity of any of these stories now.  And now, since these types of stories are becoming so ubiquitous, it no longer seems like any of them have any shred of truth.  It gives the filmmakers a crutch in my opinion, a lazy way out on taking a stand.  Yet they still fascinate because of those five little words.

The movie itself is fine.  It is quite fun to see Steve Carrell plays such an oddly menacing guy.  It is such a departure over his usual fare.  While Carell is a gifted comedian, I have found comedians tend to make some of the best actors out there.  Steve Martin, Gene Wilder, Robin Williams, Jim Carrey, Tom Hanks.  I think the reason they all make such good actors is that they have to be hyper aware of what they do for comedy.  Every nuance, every gesture, every tic, every inflection can kill what would otherwise be a good joke.  This hyper-awareness of themselves is precisely the same kind of skill that is required for good acting to be convincing, especially since good comedy tends to be an inflated sense of reality and must be real enough to be convincing.  That said, the movie is, in the movie vernacular, "deliberately paced."  Most normal people would call it slow.  I have been seeing that the movie is getting a lot of accolades for all the acting, but the overarching theme of the movie seems to be awkward silence.  The whole movie seems to be based on nobody saying much.  There are no dramatic confrontations, no fast-paced action, and therefore a tad boring.  It is an interesting story, but this is something that can wait to rent.