The Hunger Games

A month ago you could have told me The Hunger Games was about a hot dog eating contest and I would have believed you (while being confused about all the birds on the covers). But after watching some of the trailers for the movie, and getting some information about the plot, I figured I would give into the hype.

I remember a few people from my section in teacher's college reading the books when they first came out a couple years ago, and thinking it didn't sound like it would be for me. I never got into the Harry Potter or Twilight series (though I have seen the movies) and figured it would be another thing like those. Plus, I hate being held hostage by books; that "one more chapter" feeling that turns into all night. I'll be honest, I haven't read a novel in probably a year. The last one was The Book of Negroes. It was good enough to finish, but not captivating enough that I couldn't put it down to sleep. Which brings us back to The Hunger Games...

I bought the boxed set on Amazon for about $30 including shipping and tax, which I thought was a good deal. It came in on the Tuesday, I finished the first one on the Wednesday, and the last two by the Sunday. (The movie came out that Friday, but I didn't see it until this past Wednesday.) Needless to say I was held hostage by these books. I really liked the themes and philosophical insights, there were some very likable characters, and it was, what I think could be, a warning for the future. I would have preferred the books to be a little older, as I am a little older (than the target audience) some more depth and detail would have satiated my interest in this future society. And the love thing confused me. I know it's not a romance, but either be a romance, or don't be a romance! What's with all these random kisses!?

Anyways, off to the movies I went with a pair of friends. Being that I had only just finished the books I had a hard time separating it from the movie. I know I was filling in the gaps and details from the book that were left out in the movie, making it seem like the movie made more sense than it did. If I hadn't read the books, I would have still enjoyed the movie, but there is a definite benefit to being able to make the connections that the movie doesn't make implicit.

I really appreciated the direction the director took for the movie, it didn't seem too polished, the cinematography was rough and wobbly at times which contributed to an almost reality tv feel at times. For example, when she is in the tree, the background is out of focus and the camera angle is like if we were looking up at her from the ground. Little things like that just give it a more authentic feel.

Additionally, the movie is extremely well-cast. Jennifer Lawrence is perfect as Katniss. There are definitely sparks of Peeta's charisma in Josh Hutcherson, but I would have liked to have seen more. I'm not sure if Liam Helmsworth is good-looking enough to be Gale, I'll have to wait for the subsequent movies before I decide on him. Elizabeth Banks was a great Effie, but I am also undecided on Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. I would have preferred him more surly. I really liked the idea of Lenny Kravtiz as Cinna, but I didn't think the movie did him justice by developing his relationship with Katniss enough. I'm a huge Donald Sutherland fan, and I think he will be the perfect President Snow in the next two movies. Stanley Tucci can do no wrong, and as Caesar, he delivers.

I liked the idea of including the Gamemakers more for the movie, those scenes helped to give the audience more information that would have been difficult to transpose from the first person narrator of the books, to a movie. With that being said, like most books to movies, there were definitely lots of details that were left out. I'm trying to think of examples to make this post more legit, but I can't, I should take notes whilst watching movies. The details that did make the cut (aka the entire plot of the movie) were pretty true to the story. There was definitely some differences (here's a link to a post analyzing some of the major differences) between the book and movie, but none I was really outraged about. I was not tempted to yell out in the theatre "but in the book ...!".

I want to wrap this up, but I should say something about violence first...

There has been a lot of talk about the age appropriateness of The Hunger Games. I read an article in the Toronto Star last week about what age kids should be reading this at. The general feel was that depending on the reader, grade 7 was probably a safe bet. Don't get me wrong, the books are definitely violent, and I would say the first one is probably the least so, but there is definitely a difference between reading about something and seeing it in front of you. I think the movie was successful in the amount of violence and brutality it chose to show. I am not ruling out that I am pretty desensitized to this sort of stuff, like most of us are, and I am not a tween or teen, and don't think like one, or internalize content like one. So I'm not going to say let all your twelve-year-olds go see this, but based on the book, I found the use of violence in the movie to be appropriate.

Overall, the movie wasn't as epic as I hoped it would be. Reading the book definitely helps the movie make more sense, but it does an adequate job, and I think fans of the book will be satisfied. I would need to see it again, though, to better form my thoughts on it.

 This movie made me shed exactly two tears.

Hugo

What a beautiful movie. The one thing I had heard about this movie that stuck out to me was: "a great artist has been given command of the tools and resources he needs to make a movie about — movies". Ebert is talking about Scorsese. And it kind of hit me, that filmmakers, no mater how renowned, don't get to make all the movies they want to, for purposes of budget or content, not all movies are going to be financially, of course, and are never made. I am glad this movie was given the budget it needed to be spectacular. Here we have Martin Scorsese, the man behind a whole lot of Robert Deniro and Leonardo DiCaprio movies, is making a movie about an orphan and a shop-keeper. 

But there is so much more to it than that. Asa Butterfield is Hugo, an orphan living in a Paris train station. When he's not keeping the clocks running on time, he is trying to fix an automaton, a robot of sorts, that he and his dad found and started restoring. Hugo then meets Georges, and his foster-daughter Isabelle, and we learn a lot about the history of movies from there. It also stars Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Chloe Grace Moretz.

The historian and movie-lover in me loved the clips of movies from the early 1900's; I was blown away when they said every frame of a scene was painted by hand so it could be in colour. And the film itself is a wonder for the eyes, filmed in 3-D, I watched it in two dimensions, but was taken aback but how whimsical the setting was, I thought for a moment that it was animated a la Robert Zemeckis.

My one complaint would be of Asa. He does a wonderful job of bringing the character of Hugo to us, but there is something I just found not very likable about him. Maybe it was the startling blue of his eyes contrasting with the black of his hair that just made him seem mischievous. I can't explain it entirely, but like E.B. in Hop, I was disappointed that I didn't really care about the main character. I did care deeply about Georges, played by Ben Kingsley, and he is the player in this movie that really makes it complex and a movie that parents as well as their children will enjoy.

Hugo is smart, historical, beautiful, and captivating.

Drive

After watching this movie I wasn't sure what I thought about it. I liked the atmosphere; the late 80's, early 90's music and font type, I liked how quiet the first half was, but the second half went in a totally different direction. Drive is the story of a professional race care driver (Ryan Gosling) who is quiet and mysterious and develops a relationship with his neighbour and her son. When the neighbour's husband gets out of prison, The Driver gets involved in a deadly plot to help out his new friends.

This movie is slow and strange and curious. There was a lot more violence than I thought there would be, and I feel like it kind of takes away from what was slowly being built up in the first half. If I'm being honest here, I watched this movie a good month ago, and just now realized I didn't finished this review. But from what I remember it was a good movie, good performances, probably not every one's cup of tea, and the second half was wildly different from the first. But definitely interesting.

Tower Heist

After finding out that their pension fund has been embezzled, the former staff of The Tower apartments hatch a plan to rob the guy that robbed them. Starring Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Casey Affleck, Alan Alda, Matthew Beoderick, Tea Leoni, and Gabourey Sidibe.

Beside proving that Ben Stiller gets better looking with age, and Matthew Broderick gets worse, this movie was pretty middle of the road. It was watchable and had some funny moments, but it wasn't memorable. Eddie Murphy played the typical black criminal without enough screen time, Casey Affleck was adorable (as always) but he has a comedic timing we see in Ocean's 11, but not in this one. Tea Leoni enters the picture as necessary, but could have had more depth. Alan Alda was a great villain, so sly. It was nice to see Precious in something else. Broderick was awful. The plot was unbelievable but it's not supposed to be, it's just supposed to be fun. The movie was light and watchable.

American Horror Story: Season 1

I can't believe it's been almost a month since my last review, it's not without a good reason though, my employment situation has improved greatly in the last month. It does require me to wake up at an ungodly hour, which means I'm going to bed earlier, and have less time to commit to movie-watching. Fear not! In the mean time I did get hooked on a tv series. As the title hints, that show was the first season of American Horror Story. I have been trying to find a show to fill the gap between True Blood and Dexter for my guy and I to watch, Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire failed to pique his interest, and I really thought AHS would be The One. Well, he never got into it, but I did.

It's basically the story of a family living in a haunted house, and stars Dylan McDermott, Connie Britton, Jessica Lange, and Russel Edgington.

The pilot episode was really good: scary, strange, mysterious, sexy. The title theme is legitimately hard to watch it's so creepy. However, the show gets a little campy as it progresses. I would have to watch the pilot again to determine if the pilot really was that much better than the rest of the series, or if it was just new and fresh and then I became desensitized with the story. I also had some issues with the finale, it felt pieced together and cheesy. Either way I'm hooked on this series and look forward to season 2.