The Hunger Games Review

I'm going to try my damnedest not to compare the movie with the book. To me, movies based off books have the option (or in some cases opportunity), to branch off from the source material. I think the Harry Potter series succeeded and failed in this aspect, and I feel the same way about The Hunger Games. However, I am going to judge the movie based on its movie qualities, and not as an adaptation of the novel.

In case you don't know, The Hunger Games series follows the trials Katniss Everdeen, a teenager living in the futuristic society known as Panem, which is most likely a post-apocalyptic North America. She resides with her mother and younger sister in District 12, the coal mining district and bottom-of-the-totem-pole area. Every year, Panem puts on The Hunger Games, a battle to the death between young men and women from each of the 12 districts who must fight to the death on live television, to remind the citizens of Panem of the war that created the new government. Katniss volunteers in place of her sister, and is thrust into a world she tries so mightily to survive, while, unknowingly, sets the wheels in motion for a revolution.

Needless to say, the source material is a pretty dark affair. It's about kids killing kids for goodness sake. It's brutal, bloody, and shocking. The material in the book could have made the film a very hard rated R; however, the books are geared toward more mature teenagers. It was obvious the movie needed to be the same. While the movie is PG-13, it is, in some ways, not as dark as it could have been. I felt as if many of the secondary characters, including President Snow (played wonderfully by Donald Sutherland) didn't get as much screen time as he probably could have. The same goes for the capitol and outlining districts as well. I was hoping the movie would get a little more involved in creating the world of Panem. There is a lot of great scenes here already, but I was hoping to get a little more insight into how District 12 runs, or see the parallels between the struggles of District 12 and the successes of the Capitol. Director Gary Ross does a good job of creating the world, but he doesn't do as much as he could have.

Many have argued that the film isn't as violent as it could have been, but I disagree. The movie doesn't have to show us bloody killings or severed limbs in order to show us how brutal it is to see kids being killed by other kids. The movie needed to show more that the idea of the Hunger Games far outweighs the brutality of the Games themselves, if that makes sense. It would have been more effective if the film showed us the death of a tribute, and then cut to their family and district, to show the killing on an emotional level. Again, it was a good start, but it needed more polish.

Having said that, the movie is pretty effective overall. Jennifer Lawerence is terrific as Katniss Everdeen, and if she needed to, could carry the entire movie on her own, which she does at many points. I really enjoyed the parallels between Katniss' time hunting outside of District 12, and her ability to bring those skills into the Hunger Games in order to survive. It was effective directing and editing by the filmmakers. I also really enjoyed Liam Hemsworth as Gale and Wes Bentley as Games director Seneca Crane, but wanted to see them more. The character of Gale gets hardly any screen time, and I found it difficult to see the deep friendship that he has with Katniss. You can see that Bentley really enjoyed his time creating Seneca Crane, and while I applaud the idea of cutting between the "Game Center" and the Hunger Games themselves, I wanted to see more development of Crane, instead of the cut-out he is written as that Bentley tries so terribly to overcome. I was also surprisingly impressed with Lenny Kravitz as Cinna, and Woody Harrelson does a great job of playing...Woody Harrelson, erm, Haymitch.

The set pieces and costumes are all terrific. There's a great dichotomy between the Capitol and District 12, and the filmmakers hold nothing back by showing just how different both areas can be. The movie also sets up obvious points for the next two books in the series, which, based on the huge success of the film in its opening weekend, will inevitably be adapted soon.

It may sound as if I did not enjoy the film all that much, which is hardly the case. These are some negatives that are far outweighed by the positives the film has. Gary Ross and the rest of the filmmakers do a terrific job of creating the world and the characters that inhabit it; it's obvious everyone wanted to do their best to make a good movie, rather than an adaptation to make money. I trust that the next films build off the success of the first, and find the opportunities to fix the issues this one has.

B+

Friends with Kids Review

You would think Friends with Kids would fall in line behind pretty much every romantic comedy that's been made over the past couple of years. For the most part, it does, but that's not to say without trying to at least do something a little different with it's story, but it doesn't quite have enough effect to really make it stand out as much as it could.

The movie basically has conflicting viewpoints on the whole concept of modern-day relationships. On one hand, it has the idea that marriage and parenting can ruin a person's life. But on the other, it says that it can save someone's life; give them new meaning so to speak. It gives pretty compelling arguments for both sides, but never really decides which one it wants us to think is best, and I kind of see that as a cop out. If you're going to do a movie about new 21st century relationships, then own up to which one you think is the best for the time we're in now. Don't worry about happy endings or making your characters get exactly what they want. Give us the grit of relationships nowadays. True, there is one couple that embodies the issues with parenting, but their end seems so arbitrary that it doesn't really add much to the movie's ideas about relationships to begin with.

It seems really odd to compare Friends with Kids with Bridesmaids, but I couldn't help it. Four of the main actors are back (Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph, John Hamm, and Chris O'Dowd), and it's almost like seeing these same characters after the events of Bridesmaids.  A lot of the dialogue is really funny and whimsical, but I sometimes had a difficult time believing everyone would really talk like this. It's kind of similar to my problem with Juno: no 16 year old is that witty.

The most ironic thing about the movie, though? Megan Fox, who has a small role, is actually pretty good. Not like, oh wow look at Megan Fox, her body is distracting me from how terrible she's acting right now, but more like huh, she's actually holding her own in these scenes. Granted, her toughest dramatic competition is John Hamm, and her character is just pretty much a bridge across a huge metaphorical gap, but nevertheless it was a nice surprise.

However, the movie really disappointed me with its ending. The final scene really tries hard to tell us that these characters actually did grow and learn something from this experience, but then it ultimately twists its words around and were left thinking maybe that's not the case, and before we even know, the movies over. It leaves a bad taste. It'd be like drinking Kosta Browne at a party for hours, and then suddenly you're forced to drink a Bud Light. Not the best combo.

In all honesty though, the movie is pretty funny. The characters are for the most part pretty likable, which helps us root for them, even though they all have huge flaws and none of them know squat about raising a kid, and sometimes the movie kind of glorifies this idea. Plus, we know the road the movie is heading down almost from the moment it begins, but these characters make us not concerned with that.

B

Wanderlust Review

Wanderlust, from director David Wain, isn't exactly well written, or particularly well thought out, but it does make for a pretty funny movie. The film follows a young New York couple, Linda and George (Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd), getting hit hard by the recession, and being forced to move away from the city. Weighing their options of what to do next in their lives, they decide to make camp at a rural commune where free love reigns and peace rules.

The movie can suffer from being a one note comedy. Many of the secondary characters in the film are nothing more than caricatures of roles we've seen plenty of times before. But Wain's script is able to find enough room to make most of these characters have at least a few funny moments, and enough of those funny moments add up to the film being overall fairly enjoyable, despite it's flaws.

It's terrific seeing Paul Rudd get starring roles in comedy films, like I Love You, Man, or How Do You Know, and now Wanderlust. He's been a great supporting actor in comedy movies for years, and Wanderlust gives him a lot of opportunities to show off, more so than in many of his recent movies, including starring roles. One scene in particular is a highlight, with Rudd trying to find just the right words he wants to say before...getting in bed. The scene goes on a bit too long, but Rudd is able to go with it and make it work really well, despite the content.

It should also be pointed out that the movie is very much an R-rated film, and doesn't do a whole lot to hide it. Much of the rating comes from the film's dialogue, which gets down right filthy at times, in the most comedic ways possible. This is what we've come to expect from a David Wain film, though. Filthy dialogue, sexually free characters, and hilarious payoffs because of that combo.

At times Wanderlust seems to be rushing itself ahead far too quickly, especially towards the end of the second act. This is especially true for Jennifer Aniston's character, who has a fairly dramatic twist towards the conclusion that the film just kind of throws away a few minutes later. Without giving away any of the story, the twist is something that I don't think would be taken lightly with a lot of married couples, and the resolution just doesn't seem to be grounded in much reality. However, most of the movie takes this liberty, most of the time for beneficial reasons, but this part bothered me a bit.

While Wanderlust may not be on par with previous Wain films like Role Models, it is still a pretty enjoyable comedy with two stars having a lot of fun in their roles. The movie drags in the middle, and oddly picks the pace up a little too quickly for its own good, but manages to maintain the laughs throughout.


B

Awake: Pilot Review

When I first heard about Awake a few months ago, I was intrigued and skeptical at first. Since the success of ABC's Lost, every network has tried to recreate that sci-fi magic, and for the most part, failed terribly. However, Awake sounded different than the rest. Early positive reviews and buzz has created a feeling that maybe this can be science fiction's next great television series.

The series revolves around the premise that Michael Britten (Jason Isaacs) has created two different realities in his mind after being in a car crash with his wife and son. In one reality, his wife survived the crash, while his son perished. In the other, his son survived, and his wife died. Each reality seems real to both Michael and the people in each. While the show does seem as if it will be a thinking man's television show, the writers do their best at outlining the idea easily, and making the revelations concise and accessible for most. Many people have already equated the show to Lost, yet I disagree. While Awake  may share similarities with ABC's hit, I feel as if the show owes more to the much shorter lived Fast Forward.

Although Awake is a fascinating premise, the first episode, at times, seems a bit too plodding. Several of the scenes with Michael and his two therapists go on for far too long. Yet, it is obvious these scenes are going to be crucial points of the show, revealing tapestries of the web this show has already created, forcing Michael, and the viewers, to take the clues in any chance they're given, to try and understand just how this is happening. Towards the end of the episode, both therapists give compelling arguments as to how and why their reality is "the " reality. It's a nice payoff, but I'd rather not have to wait that long each week for it.

I feel also that Awake didn't focus enough on the main issue it sets forth. The show begins with the idea that Michael has created two worlds, where his family is split. To me, the most underdeveloped characters of the episode were his wife and son, his son especially. His wife Hannah (Laura Allen) has a great scene towards the end of the episode, where there's a hint that she may become jealous at Michael's "gift" later in the series, yet his son Rex (Dylan Minnette) has hardly any screen time. He showed some terrific emotion after a tennis game, but I just wanted more of these characters, and less emphasis on Michael's detective work, which, to me, seemed to take up the bulk of the episodes run time.  However, I feel as if this something that can and will be resolved in the coming episodes.

The cast as a whole plays their parts exceedingly well. The highlight is of course Isaacs,which is crucial in a show like Awake. His character needs to be likeable, charismatic, and a little off kilter. Michael is all of this and more. He states at one point in the episode that he will do everything to keep both of his family members alive, even if it means sacrificing his sanity in order to do it. We believe him, and can't wait to see what happens next. 

B+