"The Hunger Games," the Young Adult Franchise That Ended Up Being a Very Dark Treatise on the Effects of War, Comes to Fitting Conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2

The Hunger Games series has been a pleasant surprise (both the books and films) because it started out as a knockoff of Battle Royale but ended up becoming a meditation on war and revolution. The final two parts, while too blatant in their message, do not glory in the war, but rather analyze it. The first part was about propaganda, which made it interesting, if a little on the boring side. Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) spent the bulk of the film as the symbol of the rebellion, which meant she filmed a bunch of promotional videos for the war, but spent very little time in the actual war. It felt like a cheat, both for the audience and for Katniss. In Part 2, however, Katniss gets involved in real war.

If Part 1 was about the effects of propaganda and symbols in war, Part 2 is about actual war. An early scene has Katniss arguing with Gale (Liam Hemsworth) about bombing a compound and the collateral damage it could cause. Katniss worries about every death since she had to kill so intimately during the Games, but Gale thinks that even people mopping the floors of a Capitol compound deserve to die. The film actually leaves it up to the viewer who is right as innocent people do die, but positive results ensue. What is notable is the fact that such an issue is brought up at all. In most films, especially young adult films, there are simply good guys and bad guys. In The Hunger Games, it’s more of a gray area. It’s important that a franchise aimed at young people contains such a debate, because war in the real world has collateral damage. But in most popular movies and videogames aimed at young people, there is none.

Despite Part 2 being a meditation on war, it is still an action movie for the most part. Director Francis Lawrence (who has helmed the series since the second film) has an eye for action, and things are kept fresh rather than letting them devolve to nothing but bombings and shootouts. The best sequence of the film is reminiscent of Lawrence’s work on I Am Legend as the heroes spend a tense night in tunnels, fleeing mutated horrors that would have been right at home in Legend (this time the CG is a bit better, though).

While there is plenty of action, the film keeps focusing on the characters’ reactions to it. Katniss is the reluctant warrior, only fighting because she must. Gale is the bold warrior, willing to do whatever it takes to end it. And Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), newly released after being tortured and brainwashed, is the damaged warrior. Peeta’s condition foreshadows nearly every major character: this rebellion will leave you damaged, but there is hope. Once again, The Hunger Games is a franchise that, for better or worse, does not shy away from the effects of violence and war. The heroes do not celebrate, even when they win.

As for that “better or worse” part, any film that wants to get big ideas across runs the risk of becoming preachy, and Part 2 definitely falls into that trap a few times. The amount of speeches about war and rebellion in this film is staggering. It seems like every five minutes someone is giving a speech to remind us what the movie is about. It makes you want to yell, “I get it! This movie is about war and its consequences!” The film, which is a bit long, probably could have shaved ten minutes off its screen time by nixing a couple of these redundant speeches. Also, just like in Part 1, characters spend too much time watching screens. It’s hard to not feel silly watching a screen featuring characters staring at a screen.

Despite these minor squabbles, The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 is a fitting end to the series (which probably won’t really end and will be expanded upon within a few years). The series truly found its tone and look in the last few films, ditching the glitzy Capitol of the first two films and flooding the last films (quite literally in one scene) in darkness. The colorful world gives way to concrete and despair as the series focuses on war. Hats off to The Hunger Games series. It could have easily been fluff spoon fed to the masses of young fans, but ended up being a surprisingly dark, if not heavy handed, treatise on war and its effect on everyone.           

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 2 receives:

Random Thoughts - SPOILERS

I couldn't help but think about Dante and Randall's conversation about the Death Star in Clerks. Turns out Gale and the contractor have the same view of laborers for evil empires...

I don't know why Gwendolyn Christie is in this film. She has maybe two minutes of screen time. 

The treatment of Philip Seymour Hoffman was handled as deftly as possible. He's reduced to a series of reaction shots here and played up as the silent plotter behind it all. I suppose it works.

"Mockingjay," Despite Being the First Part of a Cash Grab, Is Pretty Good and Might Even Make You Think

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

The Hunger Games series has become popular enough (among diverse groups, not just teenagers) that comparisons to other young adult series make less and less sense.  The first (The Hunger Games) and second film (Catching Fire) were still similar to other properties because of the love triangle and youth contest aspect, but things change with Mockingjay – Part 1.  To be fair, it is similar to other properties in that they decided on a cash grab by dividing the last film into two parts (more on that later), but the subject matter of the film has certainly changed.  First, no more Games.  This is refreshing since the only real problem I had with Catching Fire was that it was a little too similar to the first film.  Now, they took that fire of rebellion from the first film and dove right in.  This is no longer a young adult series about figuring out your place in the world and picking the right boyfriend; this is a full blown war film with brutal elements of physical and mental warfare.  And the series is better for that brutality because it gives the audience, young and old, something to think about in regards to the real world.

Mockingjay picks up where Catching Fire left off.  By bringing an end to the Hunger Games, Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) unwittingly started a revolution between the Capitol and the rest of the Districts (with District 13 taking charge).  Now Katniss is left to dwell on the last Games, shouldering the blame for Peeta being left behind.  But the leader of District 13, President Coin (Julianne Moore), and past-Gameskeeper/current-revolutionary Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman) want Katniss to be the face of the revolution.  They want her to be the Mockingjay that rallies the rest of the Districts to fight the Capitol.  What follows is a mix of war and propaganda that reminded me of the “Join up!” scenes from Starship Troopers.

The use of propaganda in the film is interesting because it takes what could have been a cookie-cutter revolution film and turns it into something a bit more thought-provoking.  It’s not that revolutions aren’t interesting, but how many films do we really need that simply state, “Autocratic rulers bad, common people good”?  I think everyone, even the youth of the world, understand that.  The use of propaganda shows that war isn’t just about the physical battlefield.  On top of that, it brings up questions about the ethics of propaganda.  Katniss is first tasked with filming a revolution commercial in front of a green screen.  This goes as badly as you can imagine.  Unfortunately, the film plays it for laughs rather than commentary.  No one thought it unethical to fake a triumphant war moment for Katniss.  (Slight SPOILER with the rest of this paragraph and the caption of the picture below.)  And when they do decide she should actually be involved with the war, it’s not because they want it to be real, it’s because Katniss isn’t a good actress and needs a real moment to respond to.  This is where the film is at its darkest without even acknowledging it.  Katniss goes into the field and her presence leads to an attack in which many people are killed.  This spurs the propaganda video the revolutionaries need.  The problem here is that no one points out that the attack would not have happened if Katniss hadn’t been there.  Hundreds of people are killed for the sake of a viral video for their revolution, and no one bats an eye. 

"Now Katniss, you're absolutely sure that nothing bad will happen to us because of your visit, right?"

That is not to say that Katniss doesn’t accept blame in the film.  She blames herself for Peeta’s capture.  What is upsetting is that she could not have possibly saved him, but she could have decided not to go into the field and be bomb-bait for hundreds of people.  She has no issues with that and simply chalks the attack up to Capitol evilness.  Katniss should be a little more skeptical at this point since she’s been used as a pawn by others for two films now.  This is possibly overthinking it all, and hopefully more issues like this are focused on (and if they stick to the book, they will be) in the second part.  Still, it seems like someone should have at least been angry about what caused the attack instead of sitting around patting each other on the back for creating such stirring propaganda.

The propaganda obviously brings up plenty of issues in the film, but it is also a bit of a weakness, as well.  It isn’t just Katniss making videos.  President Snow (Donald Sutherland, looking as crazy-eyed evil as ever) gives speeches throughout, and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) gives a series of interviews trying to dissuade everyone from fighting.  What this means is that a large portion of the film is presented on screens.  So the audience is basically watching videos along with the characters of the film.  There really isn’t a way around this, but it’s easy to see why some might label this film “slow” or even “boring.”  This might be where younger audiences split with the older.  I’m not sure the propaganda issues that came to my mind will be what younger viewers focus on.  Regardless, watching characters watch screens is not visually compelling cinema. 

This brings me to my only true issue with this film: it should not be a two part event.  It’s not that this film drags on, it just repeats itself at times.  For instance, Katniss visits the bombed out District 12 near the beginning of the film to see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, and later in the film she is sent back to District 12 to…see the true extent of the Capitol’s atrocity, but this time on camera!  It seemed like they could have killed two birds (mockingjays?) with one stone with that scene.  Once the second film comes out, I imagine the total running time of Mockingjay will reach around four hours.  That would be far too long for a single movie in this series, of course, but I think the story of this final book could easily be pared down to a three hour movie.  This just felt too much like a cash grab from the studio.  It doesn’t take away from my enjoyment of Mockingjay – Part 1 or anything.  It’s just that we’re going to end up with two “pretty good” movies when there might have been a great one. 

Speaking of great, everything that has made this series beloved is back for this third installment.  All of the performances are fine once again.  The new additions are welcome; Julianne Moore is a perfect choice for Coin, and it was nice to see Marhashala Ali (House of Cards) as Boggs.  There is a bit less action this time around, but the war scenes are handled quite well.  Director Francis Lawrence has truly given this series a signature look and that continues with this film.

Most importantly, Mockingjay shows how this series has grown up.  It’s a movie aimed at the young, but it is filled with adult issues and ideas.  In fact, there is an argument to be made that this could be rated R.  There are quite a few scenes of brutal violence, and the body count is extremely high.  And Finnick’s speech late in the film, though it is ignored by the characters (and most likely, the audience) reveals some very disturbing things that he was subjected to in the Capitol.  I honestly think if the film had focused on what he was saying a bit more, the rating may have changed.  This is all a positive, by the way.  Even though the propaganda scenes left me wanting more conflict, and the film repeats itself, it’s still a very enjoyable and rewarding experience.  The fact that a movie meant for people half my age made me think this much is a testament to how good this series is.  It’s just too bad we have to wait an entire year to see it end.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 receives a:

"Catching Fire" Proves That "The Hunger Games" Has More To Say Than Other YA Franchises

Directed by Francis Lawrence, written by Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt, starring Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright, Elizabeth Banks, and Philip Seymour Hoffman - Rated PG-13

Much like the unfortunate deputy, the Capitol has no idea what's about to happen.




The first Hunger Games movie was a welcome departure from the usual young adult adaptation fluff.  Typically, a young adult (or YA) series is either skewed too specifically to its young audience (the Twilight series), or its world is too complicated, or wacky, for the non-readers (insert any of the failed YA franchises here).  The Hunger Games worked because it had something for everyone, and the setting was recognizable.  You had the love triangle business for the tweens, but you had the social satire for the adults.  Sure, the satire wasn't very subtle, but it left you with something to think about.  Plus, there was a strong cast that made you care about the characters.

Catching Fire doesn't simply continue the story of The Hunger Games, it enhances it.  The appropriately titled film (and book) takes the injustices hinted at here and there in the first installment and puts them at the forefront.  Heroine Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) can no longer be the quiet pawn in the government’s game.  She has become a symbol, and it’s impossible for her to keep a low profile.  Because of this, President Snow (Donald Sutherland) has to push Katniss back into the spotlight, so he can destroy her and any hopes for a revolution that she might represent. 

This is a fairly basic story as far as dystopian films go.  An impoverished populace must fight their rich overlords.  What makes it different is that this is not a film about planning.  Katniss is truly a game piece that each side uses, often without her knowledge.  Since she is kept in the dark, the audience is as well, for the most part.  The film diverts from the book (which is told only through Katniss’s perspective) with a few scenes with Snow and the new head Gamemaker, Plutarch Heavensbee (Philip Seymour Hoffman), but the bulk of the film is told through Katniss’s eyes.  This is important because it leaves some mystery to what could have been a very boring story.  Katniss is an unwilling symbol of freedom that needs to see firsthand the atrocities being committed throughout society.  Instead of boring secret meetings in which plans are hashed out then performed, we get to see Katniss react to the extreme poverty gap.

The Hunger Games is a series that requires you to suspend disbelief and accept that this world, in which the nation’s youth are forced to kill each other for entertainment, exists.  As a free society, the audience may find it hard to believe that humans could ever let things get so bad, but historically, it happens (some would argue it’s happening right now).  Some might think, “How is Katniss so gullible?”  But she is the product of the world she was born in.  There is no grand revolution to celebrate because it hasn’t happened yet.  In fact, it was attempted years ago, and the district that rebelled doesn’t exist anymore.  So her frame of reference for revolution is the opposite of, say, an American’s.  To Katniss, revolution means everything you know and love will be destroyed.  So it’s important for her to see the discontent firsthand.

Director Francis Lawrence, writers Simon Beaufoy and Michael Arndt (credited as Michael DeBruyn, for some reason), and author Suzanne Collins have done a fantastic job of showing the divide.  Collins, of course, laid the groundwork, and Beaufoy and Arndt focused on the best examples, but Lawrence (no relation to star Jennifer) should get most of the credit for presenting it all in a very effective way.  He sticks with the first film’s style by following most of the characters from behind as they walk into scenes, but he has improved upon the original.  Perhaps it’s only because there was more money available, but Catching Fire simply looks better than the first film, which means that the differences between the rich of the Capitol and the suffering of the poor are that much more realistic and powerful.  The staging of most of the film in general is quite effective with the characters small in the frame and the surroundings towering around them.  It created a feeling of the world bearing down on all of these characters.

Who cares about the world bearing down if you don’t like the characters, though?  Thankfully, Catching Fire has enough talent for you to get on board with most of the characters involved.  There are some great actors involved with this, including two Academy Award winners (Jennifer Lawrence and Philip Seymour Hoffman) and two more nominees (Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci).  These four acclaimed actors are joined by returning stars Josh Hutcherson, Elizabeth Banks, Toby Jones, Donald Sutherland, and Liam Hemsworth, to name a few, and a few newcomers in Jeffrey Wright, Amanda Plummer, Sam Claflin, Jena Malone, and Lynn Cohen.  The fact that there are even this many roles to be filled by recognizable actors shows that this is no throwaway movie for tweens.  Because of the size of the cast, however, most of the roles rely on screen presence alone. 

Most of the actors are given at least one scene to show off a little bit, but there’s not enough for them to do to stand out in any way.  But it is certainly nice to see the likes of Jeffrey Wright and Amanda Plummer in small roles.  The most high profile new addition would be Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character takes the place of Seneca Crane, aka the guy with the crazy beard, from the first film.  Hoffman looks pretty much like he does in any other movie, but he gets to play up the ruthlessness in this role.  Hoffman is perfect for any role that requires him to seem indifferent to characters around him. 

As for the returning stars, nothing much is going on with them.  Lawrence and Hutcherson both do fine in continuing their fake romance while realizing how bad things are around them.  Banks is still pretty much a walking costume, which is kind of the point with her character.  And Harrelson is still the comic relief as the constantly drunk, but wise, former victor.  If there is a slight fault to the film, it is that his character’s alcoholism is treated so lightly, but laughs are hard to come by in the bleak world of the film, so it’s not a terrible transgression.

Catching Fire, despite the love story and social commentary, is still a bit of an action film, as well.  Since the focus is more on the problems with society than it is on the titular Games, the action is pretty scant until the last hour or so.  But that last hour is filled with plenty of tense moments.  Once again, this might be because of a larger budget, but the action looked better this time around, especially the special effects.  Director Francis Lawrence has used computer effects to his detriment before (I Am Legend), but that may have been simply because the technology was not yet up to snuff.  Either way, it looks great now, as nothing in the Arena segment seemed overly fake or manufactured.

Overall, Catching Fire improves upon the original and solidifies the series as something more than the passing fad that other series were.  There are some big themes about society and life in general behind the blood and love of the story.  Will the tweens focus more on the love triangle and pick which “team” they are on?  Probably.  But for those of us who don’t care who Katniss ends up with, there is a seriously enjoyable movie beyond that love story. 

Despite the Idiotic Title, "Silver Linings Playbook" Is Worth Watching

Silver Linings Playbook - Written and directed by David O. Russell, starring Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, John Ortiz, Shea Whigham, Dash Mihok, and Chris Tucker - Rated R

 

 

   

Writer/director David O. Russell made one of my favorite films a couple of years ago with The Fighter.  I was impressed with the style, the music selection, and, most importantly, the story that was ingrained with the location.  Oh, and the great performances helped a bit, too.  Now with Silver Linings Playbook, Russell has created a movie on the same level as The Fighter, though Silver Linings is a bit weaker than that great film.

 

Before a critique of this film can truly begin, I have to mention the idiotic title of this film.  Silver Linings Playbook.  When people hear or read that title, they have no clue what you’re talking about, even if they’ve seen the previews.  It’s just such a needlessly stupid title.  This is not as bad as Russell’s other effort, I Heart Huckabees, but it’s close.  The problem with these quirky titles is that it drives people away.  Hell, the title made me want to hate the movie before I saw it.  There’s a very easy fix for this.  Drop the Playbook part.  Yeah, football factors into the film quite a bit, but this film could just as easily been called Silver Linings and lost nothing.  You can tell the film company felt the same way because in every preview I have seen, the narrator drops Playbook from the title, and the word is extremely smaller than the other words on the poster.

 

Title aside, this is a fun, touching film.  Bradley Cooper plays Pat, a former teacher who has a mental breakdown when he catches his wife cheating on him.  He’s recently out of a mental hospital and is trying to get his life together in the hopes of rekindling his marriage.  When he meets fellow troubled person Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), things get a bit more complicated. 

 

This is a film that hinges on performances, as both leads are mentally unstable.  Cooper does a very good job with a character that could easily become infuriating to watch.  He gets into these rapid verbal trains of thought that can be tiring, but he handles them quite well (the direction from Russell helps).  He has this natural charisma that makes it impossible to hate him no matter how rude or exhausting he becomes.  It is truly one of the year’s best performances. 

 

Jennifer Lawrence continues her streak of great performances with Silver Linings.  She doesn’t get to do as much as Cooper here, but she has plenty of emotionally heavy scenes that she carries with ease, and she complements Cooper quite well.  The rest of the cast, including Robert De Niro, Jacki Weaver, Shea Whigham, John Ortiz, and Chris Tucker, is fine, but this film belongs to Cooper and Lawrence.

 

Writer/director Russell makes it an easy film to watch, too.  This could be a darkly serious tale of mental health, but Russell is beginning to trademark this serious-funny element.  In The Fighter, Christian Bale’s addiction was treated seriously, but there were also moments of comedy.  It’s awkward, but it’s life.  Plenty of times I found myself laughing during Silver Linings even though I knew it was kind of wrong, and I think that was the intent of the filmmakers.  Also, Russell has developed this style of following the characters with the camera that is very effective, especially when you’re dealing with mentally troubled characters.  When Pat is about to lose it, the camera swirls around him as he tries to rein things in, only to lose control.  It’s not in-your-face style or anything; it creates a sensation similar to what the character must be going through.

 

If Silver Linings ever loses anybody, it might be with the slightly goofy plot.  The film’s final moments hinge on the result of a football game and a ballroom dancing contest.  As weird as that is, it gets even goofier as the characters plan out these moments and literally root for their side to win.  I suppose it was meant to be figurative as they cheer for their sports but are actually cheering for their loved ones, but it still felt a little stupid at times.  Also, the plot element with the police officer who shadows Pat felt a bit incomplete and, at times, ridiculous.  I would have to spoil a few things to get into that point, so just look to the end of the review if you’ve seen the film and want to know what I’m talking about.

 

Aside from those shortcomings, Silver Linings is a fine film.  It’s not going to make my top ten list or even my honorable mention (it just didn’t grab me like The Fighter did), but it’s certainly one of the better films to come out this year, and it deserves a larger audience than it has gained so far.  If you get a chance, check it out.  You’ll laugh, maybe cry, stare in bafflement, get annoyed, you know…life stuff.  Just try to ignore that stupid title.

 

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

 

All I want to get into here is that cop, played by Dash Mihok.  I enjoyed Mihok's performance and everything, but I was left very confused by the character's presence.  So the cop is set up as this neighborhood officer who is supposed to keep an eye out for Pat since he's just been released from the mental hospital.  First off, does that actually happen?  Is Philadelphia such a safe city that police officers can be assigned to body guard duty for random citizens?  That rung completely false to me.  Things get extremely strange when the cop just happens to show up every time Pat starts to mess up.  if it's at his house, fine, but how was the cop so close to Pat outside the movie theatre that he could step in so quickly?  Was he really just following Pat around?  It got to the point that I thought the cop was part of Pat's subconscious and the cop represented his mind physically attempting to calm the situation down.  Maybe that is the case, but it's certainly never explained that way, and I feel that there should have been more explained concerning the cop.  But maybe it's just me.

"The Hunger Games"

Directed by Gary Ross, Written by Ross, Suzanne Collins, and Billy Ray, starring Jennifer Lawrece, Josh Hutcherson, Woody Harrelson, and Stanley Tucci - Rated PG-13

The Evil Kurgan was entered in The Hunger Games at age 2...he won in less than an hour.

The Hunger Games is being called the new Twilight, but don't let that keep you from enjoying it.  This new franchise, adapted from the immensely popular young adult series by Suzanne Collins, can only be compared to that other tween series because it is aimed at young people and is wildly popular.  You could argue that a potential love triangle connects it to the vampire/werewolf series, but the similarities stop there, thankfully.  I say thankfully because, no offense to the Twihards out there, The Hunger Games is a film that should be enjoyed by older viewers as well as young, male as well as female.  This isn't a movie boyfriends should have to be dragged to, this is a film they should want to see as much as, if not more, than their significant others.

 

 

The Hunger Games is set in a dystopian future in which North America has been divided up into 13 districts of a new country called Panem.  The 13th district rebelled years ago and was turned into a forbidden zone.  To remind the people of that district's betrayal, all districts are forced to select (sacrifice) a male and female "tribute" between the ages of 12 and 18 to battle to the death until only one is left.  These are the titular Hunger Games and they are presented to the public as a kind of disturbing, sick reality show. 

Typically, the tributes from the upper districts are fodder for the tributes of the lower districts.  In other words, people from Districts 1-3 are rich enough to train kids for the Games whereas tributes from Districts 10-12 are so poor they struggle to stay fed, much less train.  The heroine of The Hunger Games hails from District 12, which is basically the coal-mining Appalachian region of today's United States.  Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is the main provider for her father-less family.  She hunts with her friend (boyfriend?) Gale and looks after her sister, Prim.  When Prim is selected to be tribute, Katniss volunteers for her, essentially giving up her life for her sister's.  Once Katniss is whisked away to the Capitol, the film really starts to take off.

The main thing The Hunger Games excels at is world-building.  Panem seems like a real place, despite the ludicrous styles of the people there.  It's a simplified world that accentuates class struggle and what it's like when you have some people destined to always be poor and others to always be rich.  Katniss and her fellow tribute Peeta gaze at their surroundings in wonder because District 1 might as well be another planet compared to their dreary, miserable home.  This obviously begs the question of the sustainability of such a government, but the film doesn't delve too deeply into that area (it is hinted at and will certainly come up in the sequels).  The only problem with this set up is the exclusion of the middle Districts.  Sure, 1 is a metropolis compared to 12 and people won't stand for that for too long, but what about 4-9?  Are these Districts decent?  How do they feel about the government?  Hopefully, it will be covered in the sequels. 

The opulence of the Capitol should be enough to hold people over, though.  The styles of the everyday people are like that of pre-revolution France.  You have this upper class that is comical in its opulence (it looks like Lady Gaga picked out everyone's clothing and makeup) contrasted by this poor lower class who know only misery.  District 12 has an effective, gritty feel to it and District 1 is a shiny, futuristic beacon of hope (or maybe impending doom). 

The setting trumps every other aspect of the movie, but that doesn't mean the characters are uninteresting.  Katniss makes a compelling heroine because she is methodical but has that hint of weakness that makes her more human.  Peeta is a bit dull, but that may be due to a lack of screen time more than anything.  Haymitch (Woody Harrelson), their mentor for the Games, is amusing because he is drunk and bitter, but there's a missed opportunity there to make him more of a meaningful character.  The rest of the characters are fine, if one note.

The actors all do a decent job.  Lawrence holds the screen well.  Stanley Tucci is a stand out as an “American Idol”-type host.  Harrelson is having fun, but seems restrained.  Sutherland is enough of a presence to work as the scheming President Snow.  No stand outs, but more importantly, no atrocious performances, either.  The only red flag is the casting of Toby Jones in such a miniscule role. 

Action is just as important to this film as setting and character, though.  The film, after all, is named after this extremely violent event.  If you can get past the disturbing thought of children killing each other for entertainment, then the action of the film is compelling. It's toned down a bit from the book (although some scenes are still quite brutal for a PG-13 rating), but the survival elements are handled well and things move quickly.  I wouldn't sell this movie as an action film or anything, but it works. 

As a standalone film, The Hunger Games has enough going for it with the setting, characters, and action to keep casual filmgoers entertained, but there is another audience that is going to dissect this film: fans of the book.  I have read the book and found it enjoyable for what it is.  As far as the film is concerned, this is a very faithful adaptation.  Sure, things are changed and characters are dropped but that is necessary when adapting a novel.  My only complaint is the lack of screen time Rue gets, but I can't imagine fans having any serious issues with this adaptation.

But this review has mainly been for the people who haven't read the book; the people who only know of The Hunger Games as the new Twilight.  Sure, there are droves of very young people going to see this movie and that usually means people over the age of 18 will hate it.  There is an exception to every rule, though.  The Hunger Games may be a tad simplified but that doesn't mean interesting questions aren't raised and important themes aren't addressed.  While it isn't high art, it is entertaining and it makes you think at least a little.  That's not the "new" anything, that's something to look forward to in the cinema these days.

Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

I feel the need to mention Battle Royale since that Japanese film is very similar a far as the actual Games portion of the movie is concerned.  I think this film is more than just an American version of that film, though, and the sequels will hopefully prove that to be true.

There is a bit of missed potential in truly exploring society in this film.  It just seems a bit ridiculous that everyone would be that giddy about a group of kids killing each other.  No one stands up to claim this is wrong.  And it's been going on for 74 years?  I get that the government is restrictive, but surely a large scale revolt would have happened by now.  Not that big a deal, I guess, but the film would be a bit more realistic if at least some people in the Capitol seemed to think the Games were a bit savage.

Didn't get a chance to mention it above, but I liked the camerawork of the film, even if it did get too shaky from time to time.  It gave the film, especially the moments in District 12, a stark feel that clashed nicely with the polished Capitol.

"X-Men: First Class"

X-Men: First Class - Directed by Matthew Vaughn, written by Ashley Miller, Zack Stentz, Jane Goldman, and Vaughn, story by Bryan Singer and Sheldon Turner, starring James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, and Kevin Bacon - Rated PG-13

Cuban Missile Crisis, Nazi hunting, Fassbender as Magneto? Rock on!




The summer of superheroes, sequels, and prequels marches on but this prequel stands out because it works as a standalone film. X-Men: First Class still plays fan service enough to please the devotees but newcomers to the series are likely to enjoy this prequel as well. The film is a mixture of history, humor, and action that stands leaps and bounds above the previous prequel, X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

While the last film in the series explained the origin of fan favorite Wolverine, this film leaves that character aside to explain the complicated friendship between Professor X/Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto/Erik Lehnsherr (Michael Fassbender), all set to the background of the Cold War. The Cold War aspect works perfectly as an origin story to the X-Men universe as the original three films are basically about a cold war among mutants that eventually turns into a real war. These comic book characters have always been ripe for comparison to American history, from civil rights to Communist fear-mongering. First Class keeps that tradition alive by actively implanting the mutants in the conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union in the 1960s.

The film isn’t just a about history, though. It’s primarily a film about how Magneto and Xavier met, became friends, and eventually ended up on opposite sides of a war. Fassbender and McAvoy are the glue that holds the film together. They work great together and if anything, there are not enough scenes featuring the duo. To be honest, Fassbender stands out a bit more than McAvoy, and his early Nazi-hunting scenes were interesting enough to be a movie on their own.

But First Class also has to give the background on some other characters like Raven/Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence), Emma Frost (January Jones), Hank McCoy/Beast (Nicholas Hoult), and many others. There may be a few too many characters, actually, but it’s not much of a problem for the film. The adversarial role goes to Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw, a kind of precursor to Magneto in the later films, helmet and all. Bacon adds a bit of fun to the movie as the evil, Hugh Hefner-esque villain.

The inclusion of so many characters means that there is a lot of ground covered by the film and most of your questions about the original films will most likely be answered, though First Class will likely leave a few attentive viewers scratching their heads because some things mentioned in the previous four films are kind of ignored or flat out contradicted. It’s all pretty harmless stuff in the larger scheme of things but dorkier audience members might cry foul.

All comic book issues aside, First Class is successful in summer blockbuster terms as there are plenty of laughs and the action is compelling and easy to follow. Oh, and it wasn’t in 3D, which is very refreshing for a big summer movie. Some of the effects and costume choices might look a bit goofy to some, but when you factor in the 1960s setting, it all adds up and gives the film a distinctive style that sets it apart from other films in the series (something Wolverine failed to do.) It seems like director Matthew Vaughn (Kick Ass) was just what the series needed.

First Class isn’t without its faults, however. As stated earlier, the film would have been more interesting had the focus been squarely on Fassbender and McAvoy. For instance, there were some great moments in a training montage in the second half of the film; if there had been two or three more scenes like that that the film would have been improved. To make room, the side story between Beast and Mystique could’ve been excised, since that storyline had already been covered with Rogue and Ice Man in the third film. Also, not all of the acting is top notch, January Jones is once again a weak link (as she was in Unknown), even though her role is to basically just sit around and look pretty. These are petty problems in an otherwise awesome movie, though.

X-Men: First Class should be enjoyable for fans and newbies alike. It does what a prequel should for the fans: it makes re-watching the original film a richer experience. Also, the film features one of the most crowd-pleasing cameos I have ever witnessed and that short scene alone makes it worth watching for any fans of the series. Those not in the know will most likely enjoy this film that has all the action and humor you could ask for in a summer blockbuster, along with a compelling story of friendship and war. Don’t worry that it’s the fifth film in the series or that it’s a prequel; X-Men: First Class is its own film and it’s a pretty good one at that.


Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Here are some inconsistencies I noticed. Moira’s appearance: she shows up as Olivia Williams in the post-credit scene of X3 as a nurse, so how does it make sense that she's a CIA agent in her twenties in the 1960s?

Xavier seeing the helmet: if you watch the first film again, Xavier seems surprised that Magneto has a helmet that blocks his ability, yet he had to have noticed the helmet at the end of this film.

The ages of Xavier and Magneto: Xavier claims, in the first film, that they first met when X was 17. I know Xavier is a genius and all, but you can't tell me that he is supposed to be 17 in this film.

Emma Frost was in Wolverine and appeared to be younger even though that film takes place after this one.

The Wolverine cameo was definitely one of the highlights of the film and an excellent use of the sole f-bomb in the film, but it does cause problems. Both Magneto and Xavier seem unaware of Wolverine in the first film. I suppose it could be argued away because they were visiting many mutants and never really got a good look at Wolvie, but it seems like they should have a bit of memory about him.

Speaking of Wolverine, remember at the end of Origins, when that weird CG-young Patrick Stewart shows up, bald and standing? Xavier can't walk at the end of the this one and he still has his hair, so that's messed up now.

For the record, I am completely fine with First Class ignoring the timeline of Wolverine. The fact that that film is contradicted so much seems to say that Marvel has kind of discredited it. Not sure if it's even meant to be counted as part of the canon anymore. I'm okay with leaving it out. Especially since that film messed with some characters as well, like Sabretooth, who went from a cool, wise-cracking Liev Schreiber to a mute wrestler/actor Tyler Mane.

I am sure I missed some issues, but the point is this film stands on its own in many ways, including it's place in the canon.

Finally, I am serious. I want to see Michael Fassbender in Erik Lehnsherr: Nazi Hunter.