The Hunger Games: Catching Fire (2013) review

The first ‘Hunger Games’ film was a huge success both critically and commercially when it came out back in March 2012. However, while the film was very good thanks in part to the writing and Jennifer Lawrence’s outstanding performance in the lead role, there was room for improvement, namely in regards to the shaky camera work and fast editing during the actual Hunger Games. That’s not to say the film wasn’t bad. It’s always been the case with most book-to-film franchises in that most of them get better as their series go on (e.g. Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings). It’s the responsibility of the first film to set up the universe and characters, and the first did a great job as far as that was concerned. So now all eyes are on the first sequel ‘Catching Fire’ to continue the story. In the director’s chair this time around instead of Gary Ross is Francis Lawrence (no relation to the leading lady), director of ‘Constantine’ and ‘I Am Legend’, who impressed Lionsgate enough to be chosen as the director for the final two Hunger Games films, parts 1 and 2 of ‘Mockingjay’. He’s certainly the right man for the job, because while I do really love the first ‘Hunger Games’, ‘Catching Fire’ is far superior to it in almost every way.

After their victory in the 74^th Annual Hunger Games, Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson) return home to District 12 before heading off on their ‘Victory Tour’ through the other districts of Panem. However, while both of them are looking to get on with their lives, they soon learn that their defiant actions in the Arena, where they became the first dual winners in the history of the Games, have inspired rebellions all over Panem. This now makes Katniss not only the symbol of hope for the rebellion, but also a target of the Capitol and she is warned by President Snow (Donald Sutherland) to make it look like her actions were done out of her supposed love for Peeta and not as an act of defiance; otherwise her loved ones will be killed. But soon, Katniss and Peeta are forced back into the arena for the 75^th Annual Hunger Games due to the 3^rd Quarter Quell, an event that takes places every 25 years where the Games are affected by a unique rule. In this case, all of the Tributes are past Hunger Games winners, making things even more challenging for Katniss and Peeta this time around.

The biggest advantage that this film has over its predecessor is perhaps the fact that, with a bigger budget, F. Lawrence is able to expand on the world of Panem in ways Gary Ross couldn’t necessarily do with the first one. We get a greater sense of this world and, more importantly, the rebellion that is now happening in it. We don’t necessarily see a full-out rebellion as it’s more focused around Katniss and her reluctance to be the symbol of hope for the districts, but we clearly see that it’s beginning to take shape. Obviously, this rebellion will become much more important in the next two films. Once the film gets into the arena for the 75^th Hunger Games, you folks will be pleased to know that the shaky cam and fast editing of the first film is no longer a problem. It’s all terrifically shot and, while I’ll be spoiler-free about what happens during these Games, the whole arena is very unique, which makes it a little more interesting this time around.

Once again, Jennifer Lawrence shines in the role of Katniss Everdeen, the reluctant symbol of the rebellion who is also sort of traumatized by her experiences in the previous Hunger Games, which we see early on when Katniss suddenly has a vision of one of the tributes from the last film while hunting with Gale (Liam Hemsworth). The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is far more developed in this film, mainly because the writers actually did remember to use the plot-point of how Katniss was playing up their relationship in the arena to win over the audience; the previous film omitted a key scene at the end where Peeta learns about this. Because they have far more substantial roles to work with in this film, Hutcherson and Hemsworth are able to get into their roles more. The idea of a ‘love triangle’ is there, but it’s not overplayed. Like the last film, this one has a great supporting cast with great performances all around from both returning characters (Woody Harrelson as Haymitch, Donald Sutherland as President Snow, etc.) and new ones (Sam Claflin as Finnick Odair, Jena Malone as Johanna Mason, etc.).

While I do love the original ‘Hunger Games’ film, despite its flaws, ‘Catching Fire’ is superior to the original in almost every way. Now with the whole idea of ‘establishing’ the universe out of the way, thanks to the first film, this sequel allows us to explore this world even more and with that, we’re able to see the growing rebellion that is beginning amongst the Districts of Panem, making things quite suspenseful at times for the main characters. The cast once again brings their all to it and once the film moves into the Arena this time, the shaky camera work and fast-editing from the first film is non-existent which leads to a much more exciting Hunger Games. Francis Lawrence certainly proves that he’s the right man for taking over this franchise, more specifically the two-part finale, ‘Mockingjay’. I’m a little hesitant on the idea of splitting the final book into two films. It’s not because of who’s involved behind the camera, or the quality of the material; it’s just if there's enough material to work with like ‘Harry Potter’. We’ll just have to wait and see when ‘Part 1’ comes out next November.

Rating: 5/5!

The Hunger Games (2012) review

(Note: The following is a newly written review, updated from an earlier review that I did on this film back in March 2012 on Rotten Tomatoes. I would’ve just reposted that original review here, but looking back I realized that it wasn’t really that good and, also, a little biased. It mostly just consisted of me making numerous comparisons to another certain young adult film franchise which was also adapted from a popular book series. Because of this, I decided to write a new review just in time for ‘Catching Fire’. Enjoy!)

(Also, as a bit of a warning, there are some Spoilers regarding the ending.)

We all know how J.K. Rowling’s ‘Harry Potter’ series, which was already a major success in book form, became even more successful once the books were adapted to film beginning in 2001. In the wake of Potter, many studios tried to cash in on the success of the franchise by adapting other popular book franchises. However, for the longest time, no one really had any luck at creating ‘the next Harry Potter’, despite the fact that some of these movies had really good source material to work with, like ‘Eragon’ and ‘Stormbreaker’. The first book-to-film adaptation that managed to become as big as ‘Potter’ was ‘The Twilight Saga’ but, in the opinion of this reviewer, this was mainly because of the popularity of the source material and not because of its quality; in other words, the movies were terrible. Now, both ‘Harry Potter’ and ‘Twilight’ have come to an end, meaning that it’s time for a new franchise to step up and become the next ‘Harry Potter’ and that franchise is ‘The Hunger Games’, based off of the best-selling book series by author Suzanne Collins. Sure, in retrospect, the first adaptation of this franchise isn’t perfect, namely due to some decisions that were made in the transition to film, but overall this first film does a good job at setting up its universe and, more importantly, its lead heroine.

In the future, the nation of Panem exists in a post-apocalyptic North America consisting of the main city of The Capitol and its 12 neighboring districts. After the 12 Districts (previously 13) started a rebellion, The Capitol, after defeating the rebels and apparently destroying the 13^th District, initiated a new annual event called ‘The Hunger Games’, a televised event where 24 ‘Tributes’ (one male and female from each district) fight to the death until only one remains as the winner. During the year of the 74^th Hunger Games, District 12 resident Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) volunteers to be the female Tribute for the District after her sister Prim (Willow Shields) is initially chosen. Along with fellow District tribute Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson), Katniss is brought to the Capitol where she and Peeta are put to the test as they must compete with Tributes who have had more experience than them and have better ‘odds’ at winning.

Like most book franchises, ‘The Hunger Games’ serves as the film in its series whose job is to set up the universe and its characters, and as far as that is concerned, director Gary Ross does a very good job at establishing the unique world of Panem and bringing it to the big screen. The key themes of the novel, like the idea of oppression and critiques of both government and the media, are executed well on film. In terms of staying faithful to the source material, the film may not maintain the first-person narrative from the book, as told by Katniss, but I do like that it gives more attention to those behind the scenes, namely President Snow (Donald Sutherland) and Head Gamemaker Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley).  But as for the action once the actual Hunger Games get started, it leads to probably the biggest problems that some have with the film; a lot of shaky camerawork and fast editing. There’s no denying it; it is pretty noticeable, but considering that this film probably wouldn’t have been able to maintain a PG-13 rating considering how violent things get during the Games, it’s sort of understandable as to why they went this route.

But really the best part about this whole film is its main character, Katniss Everdeen. Compared to a certain female lead in another young adult franchise, Katniss can certainly hold her own and is not dependent on a man. This film belongs to Jennifer Lawrence, who does an outstanding job at conveying Katniss’s emotions. She’s backed up by a terrific supporting cast that includes Woody Harrelson as Katniss and Peeta’s mentor Haymitch, Stanley Tucci as Hunger Games commentator Caesar Flickerman, and Lenny Kravitz as Katniss’s stylist and ally Cinna. Sure, this movie does have one of those ‘love triangles’ that you see a lot of in these kinds of movies and the two male leads may not be as ‘developed’ as Katniss, but both Hutcherson and Liam Hemsworth, who plays Katniss’ friend Gale (who, for the record, is only on screen for like 10 minutes), do good enough jobs with what they have to work with. It may seem like Lawrence and Hutcherson don’t really have good chemistry but that’s sort of how it played out in the book; Katniss played up the romance in order to gain sympathy from the audience, ultimately resulting in her actually beginning to have feelings for Peeta. However, I do have to add that, as faithful as they were to the book, the filmmakers left out a key scene in the end where Peeta learns about this, which would have helped developed their relationship in future movies. Hopefully ‘Catching Fire’ doesn’t forget this crucial plot-point.

In the end, ‘The Hunger Games’ may not exactly be perfect, mainly due to some shaky camerawork and fast editing during the actual Hunger Games. But as a whole, this film does benefit from some very good writing and, for the most part, very well-developed characters. The one in particular who stands out here is Jennifer Lawrence. Not only is the character of Katniss a well-developed female heroine, but Lawrence carries the movie on her back with the help of a talented supporting cast. Overall, Gary Ross did a very good job at establishing the universe and the characters, but I am curious to see what Francis Lawrence brings to the series with ‘Catching Fire’. Considering that he will be returning for both parts of ‘Mockingjay’, it seems like Lionsgate was impressed by his work on the first sequel. ‘Catching Fire’ is currently getting highly positive reviews, but we’ll just have to wait and see if it manages to be superior to its predecessor.

Rating: 4.5/5

 

Ender's Game (2013) review

When it was released in 1985, ‘Ender’s Game’ was a huge success, so much so that the United States Marine Corps, along with many other military organizations, have it listed on their recommended reading lists. But as far as getting a film adaptation for the story off the ground, that took a while because author Orson Scott Card believed that it was ‘unfilmable’. Something must have changed his mind over the last few years because now, in 2013, nearly 3 decades since the book was released, the film adaptation has finally hit theaters under the direction of Gavin Hood. I will admit that I went into this movie flying rather blind because I had not read the book. Also, I guess you can say I was rather nervous seeing how Hood’s last film was the god awful ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’. But as a whole, the film turned out quite good. Not only does Hood manage to redeem himself from his previous film, but it’s well-acted and while I can’t officially say whether it did a good job at representing its source material, the themes explored in the story are pretty thought-provoking.

In the year 2086, an alien race known as the Formics attempt to invade Earth. It was only through the efforts of commander Mazer Rackham (Ben Kingsley) that the invasion was thwarted, preventing the invaders from taking over the planet. But, with another invasion likely, the International Fleet begins to train young children in the hopes of finding the next candidate to lead the Fleet against the Formics. Andrew ‘Ender’ Wiggin (Asa Butterfield), the youngest of three children in his family, is chosen by Colonel Graff (Harrison Ford) and Major Anderson (Viola Davis) to join the cadets who are currently training at the elite ‘Battle School’. There, he is put to the test in a series of war-games and begins to not only gain the respect of his peers but prove to his superiors that he is the perfect candidate to lead the fight to save humanity.

From the perspective of someone who hasn’t read the book, it seems like this movie did a solid-enough job of staying faithful to the book. According to Scott Card, the main reason why he thought the book was ‘unfilmable’ was because ‘everything takes place in Ender’s head’. In that regard, some emotional resonance might be lost, but as a whole, the key themes of the book are still pretty relevant. The ideas that Card explores in this story are very interesting, like the effects of war not just on a whole society, but certain individuals as well. The ending in particular puts the main character of Ender in a situation that he doesn’t want to be in. For the sake of spoilers, I won’t give it away but it raises the question of whether or not one may view their actions as being the right thing to do. It’s quite a bold route that Card took and this translates well on the big screen.

As far as the film goes, Hood manages to move away from some of the problems that plagued his last film ‘X-Men Origins: Wolverine’. For the record, that film wasn’t entirely his fault (the material was sort of uninspired in the first place) but that film lacked proper direction. With this film, it has much better direction and the action scenes/visual effects are much better. The film also benefits from solid performances by the entire cast. In the lead role of Ender, Asa Butterfield carries the whole movie on his back and he does a great job at conveying Ender’s emotions. This kid is certainly up there amongst the better child actors working in Hollywood today. Harrison Ford is equally terrific in the role of Colonel Graff, giving a far more subdued performance than expected. As for the rest of the cast, they are excellent as well, but most of them (Viola Davis, Abigail Breslin, etc.) don’t exactly play big roles in the film.

I went into this film having not read the book, but now I’m very much intrigued to do so. Was this story ‘unfilmable’ like Orson Scott Card said? Well, that depends on how you look at it. Card mentioned that the main reason why the story would be hard to adapt because it mainly took place inside Ender’s head, so the writing may have lost some emotional resonance in the transition to film. But, compared to a film like ‘Cloud Atlas’, which went all over the place because of its multiple storylines, it seems like this story was rather easier to adapt to the big screen. The key ideas that are explored in this story are still there, and the ending in particular will leave you thinking. Casting is also quite excellent, with terrific performances all around, especially from Asa Butterfield and Harrison Ford. I’m not certain if this will lead the way for a new film series, mainly because the next entry in the series, ‘Speaker of the Dead’, takes place 3000 years after the events of ‘Ender’s Game’ with Ender being about 35 years old at that point. Will they try and do it right away and change it so that Butterfield can still play the role? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Rating: 4/5

The Great Gatsby (2013) review

There have many books over the years that have been referred to as the ‘Great American Novel’, a term used to represent a novel that is distinguished for accurately representing the mood and atmosphere of America at the time it was written. One of these novels is ‘The Great Gatsby’, author F. Scott Fitzgerald’s classic tale about one man’s attempts to woo the girl of his dreams during the Roaring Twenties. There have been a few film adaptations of the novel, with the most notable being a 1974 film written by Francis Ford Coppola which starred Robert Redford and Mia Farrow in the lead roles of Jay Gatsby and Daisy Buchanan, respectively. Now, in 2013, ‘Moulin Rouge’ director Baz Luhrmann helms a new adaptation of ‘Gatsby’ with a cast led by Leonardo DiCaprio as the titular Gatsby. As common in Luhrmann’s films, this new Great Gatsby has a unique visual flair to it but even amidst all of these crazy visuals, Lurhmann does a rock-solid job at telling Fitzgerald’s classic tale.

In the summer of 1922, Yale graduate Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire) moves to Long Island, New York, taking a job as a bond salesman on Wall Street. He soon becomes intrigued by his next door neighbor, Jay Gatsby (Leonardo DiCaprio), a millionaire who hosts lavish parties at his mansion despite the fact that his guests (most of whom are never even invited to his parties; they just show up) don’t know anything about him. But as Nick and Gatsby become friends, Nick learns that Gatsby has been pursuing Daisy Buchanan (Carey Mulligan), Nick’s cousin who had been Gatsby’s lover five years ago when he was once a poor boy fighting in the war. The problem now, though, is that Daisy is married to the arrogant and imposing Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Nick soon gets caught up in Gatsby’s pursuits of Daisy, which soon begins to spiral out of control.

This is definitely Baz Luhrmann’s ‘The Great Gatsby’. The film is visually exciting from beginning to end, which gives this Gatsby an edge over previous adaptations in that regard. Not only are the visuals eye-catching, but Luhrmann also utilizes a pretty unique soundtrack in this movie. 1920’s jazz is mixed with modern rap music from artists like Jay-Z, Andre 3000, and Kanye West. It does actually work pretty well in the film because it doesn’t feel distracting. But while the film is certainly visually impressive, do the visuals overshadow the writing? Well, the writing is still pretty solid, getting across some of the key themes of the novel, such as the idea of excess as represented through the character of Gatsby to the decline of the American Dream. In terms of staying faithful to the novel, the film follows the book quite accurately with the only major exception being the way that the story is told, which does actually work from a film standpoint.

Casting is pretty much perfect, as each member of the cast fits their role perfectly. DiCaprio brings his A-game to the role of the mysterious but charming Gatsby. His Gatsby is actually easy to sympathize with even after the dark secret as to how he has earned money is revealed. As Nick, Maguire does a fantastic job of serving as the ‘audience’, seeing how he’s the one who’s narrating the story. While the character of Daisy is not a very complex one, Mulligan does bring a new level of emotional depth to the character that shines more in the film than in the book. As Tom, Edgerton does a fantastic job as the guy we straight-up despise. Finally, we also have a rock-solid supporting cast, including Isla Fisher as Tom’s mistress Myrtle, Jason Clarke as Myrtle’s pathetic husband George, and two excellent Hollywood film debuts from Elizabeth Debicki as Nick’s love interest Jordan Baker and Amitabh Bachchan as Gatsby’s shady friend Meyer Wolfsheim.

If you go into this movie expecting the usual visuals that are present in Baz Luhrmann’s films, you won’t be disappointed. This new adaptation of ‘The Great Gatsby’ is certainly the most visually exciting out of all of the adaptations of Fitzgerald’s novel that have come out before. It can be argued that the visuals sort of overshadow the writing, but as a whole, the writing is still very solid. It does stay true to the novel (for the most part) and its key themes are still present. It also does help that the cast is fantastic and each actor/actress is perfectly cast in their respective roles. The bottom line is that Luhrmann’s take on ‘The Great Gatsby’ is a must-see. I’m certain that fans of the book will be pleased with what may be the best Gatsby adaptation to date because it doesn’t disappoint.

Rating: 4.5/5

(Stay tuned... This week, in preparation for 'Star Trek Into Darkness', Rhode Island Movie Corner celebrates 'Star Trek Week', which will include reviews of both of J.J. Abrams' Star Trek films as well as a film series retrospective.)