I'm extremely surprised that "The Hunger Games" is as popular as it is, both in its novel and film forms. A big part of me wonders if people even understand what this story is about, because it is extremely dark and the social commentary is quite apparent. The fact that the book is considered a young adult novel, and that a large part of the fanbase seems to be teenagers and even preteens is downright disturbing on some levels, because the actual social and political themes here seem like they would go completely over their heads, leaving them to read the book and watch the film purely for entertainment. Perhaps I'm not giving enough credit to the series's fanbase (The Hunger Games the novel is the first of a trilogy; the film series will likely be at least four parts). But when all I heard leading up to the film's release were comparisons to the insipid dreck that is "Twilight"--complete with yet another teenage love triangle--I was quite surprised by how dark and incisive the story is. The society of this world created by author Suzanne Collins is one where, every year, twenty-four children are rounded up and forced to fight brutally to the death in a gladiatorial match that is compulsory television viewing for the entire population of this post-apocalypic North America known as Panem. This is a society of fascism at its highest order, but more specifically, this is a story about children being forced to slaughter other children for entertainment. So IF it's being read by today's children and viewed the same as the utterly empty and pointless drivel that is "Twilight," that would be just one of many possible sad commentaries on our society.
Okay, with that out of the way, I'll just concentrate on the film itself. I've already alluded to the plot, and given the number of people who have already seen the film during its opening weekend, it's probably pointless for me to outline it any more. The weakest link in the film is definitely the script. Adapted from the novel by Collins, director Gary Ross ("Seabiscuit," "Pleasantville"), and Billy Ray, it features no shortage of clunky dialogue. The developing romance bewteen Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) and Peeta (Josh Hutcherson) near the end of the film had me rolling my eyes, and the flashbacks to Gale (Liam Hemsworth), Katniss's suitor back home in District 12 just upped the cheese factor. I don't have a problem with romance in films, or even love triangles, but they have to be handled well, and this one just felt out of place; fortunately they don't dwell on it long. There's also some pretty heavy foreshadowing that takes away from the film's most intense emotional moment, which could have been even more powerful had it been handled with more subtlety. I'm sure there are things that make sense to those who have read the book (I haven't); Katniss's three-fingered salute in particular meant nothing to me, though it's a catalyst for one of the film's most powerful moments. That's not to say that the writing is all bad; much of it is handled quite well. I thought that many of the supporting tributes were characterized rather simplistically, but I was legitimately surprised and pleased by how the climax was handled. Overall the writing was a mixed bag for me; hopefully with the film's success a more competent screenwriter can be hired for the sequels (I've seen rumors that Simon Beaufoy, who won an Oscar for writing "Slumdog Millionaire" and was nominated again for "127 Hours" is being targeted).
Other than the dialogue issues though, the film is excellent. Lawrence is an incredibly talented young actress and she absolutely owns the film; she can do more with a look or a facial expression than many actors can do with several lines. That to me is the mark of a truly great actor and Lawrence (who was deservedly nominated for an Oscar for the indie drama "Winter's Bone," and gave one of the better performances in last year's superhero ensemble "X-Men: First Class") has a very bright future ahead of her. Headlining a franchise as big as this one looks to already be should give her her pick of projects from here on out. The supporting cast is filled with big names and they all do well; Woody Harrelson as Haymitch and Stanley Tucci as Caesar Flickerman stand out in particular, and I'm looking forward to where Donald Sutherland is going to take the character of President Snow, a man I already hate just because I know what he represents in this society. Hutcherson also gives a quality performance, but Hemsworth is barely around enough to matter.
Gary Ross seemed an odd choice as director for this project, but he does a great job. The film only dragged for me during the cave sequence near the end; other than that it moves along nicely and never really feels its nearly two-and-a-half hour length. Ross also does a great job of keeping the tension up, particularly during the Games themselves. His use of the ever tricky "shaky-cam" has been debated, but I think it generally worked, particularly in the action sequences (no doubt the frenetic camera movements helped mask the more brutal aspects of the violence, thus barely preserving the PG-13 rating). I could have done without the shaky-cam during the reaping scene; I guess the idea was to give a sense of documentary-style realism, but it felt odd to me. The overall look of the film is appropriately bleak, and James Newton Howard contributes an excellent, mostly restrained score that greatly adds to the mood of the picture. Some of the effects looked rather cheap (expected I guess given that the budget was only $80 million), but with the amount of money the film has made already, the budget will at least double for the sequels, which should help out in the effects department.
I was surprised by the level of violence; much was made of the fact that the filmmakers were required to deliver a PG-13 rating when the content is probably more deserving of an R. So I definitely wasn't expecting the level of blood and gruesomeness present here; it's about as close to an R as you could possibly get in my opinion, and I've seen less gruesome content (which also wasn't by and against children) earn an R. But what's more disturbing about the violence is that it is children killing other children, and a lot of it is extremely difficult to watch. The savagery is necessary though, to illustrate the brutal nature of this fascistic world; the Hunger Games were created as punishment for an attempted rebellion against the oppressive government seventy-four years prior. But if there's any question as to the story's themes, or the potential of what is to come, a denouement scene involving Seneca Crane (Wes Bentley), and in particular the final shot of the film, should leave little doubt.
"The Hunger Games" is rated PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images--all involving teens.
Running time: 142 minutes.
Released domestically on March 23, 2012, by Lionsgate.
3 stars out of 4.
Sunday, March 25, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
"John Carter" Review
"John Carter" is the film "Avatar" wishes it could have been. Those familiar with my cinematic opinions know that I'm not at all a fan of the highest grossing film of all time, and while I certainly don't mean to imply that "John Carter" is without flaws, in terms of epic sci-fi action adventure stories, it wipes the floor with that far more successful film. If you like "Avatar" (and it's clear that most of the developed world did), you probably won't like "John Carter," but if you didn't, at least consider that this film is a far better version of a (somewhat) similar story.
I only bring up "Avatar" because the basic conceits of the two films are quite similar: a human finds himself on another world and is drawn into a conflict to defend its people. "John Carter" is based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel A Princess of Mars, the first in a series of eleven sci-fi stories that James Cameron has cited as among the inspirations for "Avatar." George Lucas has also cited them as among the inspirations for the "Star Wars" series, so if you see things here similar to those films, at least know that this story came first.
The film is book-ended with scenes of a young Burroughs (Daryl Sabara), as he investigates the estate of his uncle, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch). The film then flashes back to 1868 where we meet Carter, a Civil War veteran who, through a series of events I won't spoil, finds himself transported to Mars (or "Barsoom," as the natives call it). Due to the weaker gravitational pull and lower atmospheric density, Carter finds himself capable of super-human strength and has the ability to leap great distances, which instantly makes him a coveted weapon to the three different peoples of Mars who are engaged in a brutal civil war of their own. He first meets the Tharks, a race of nine-foot-tall, four-armed, green beings led by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe in a motion capture performance). He also meets the beautiful princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), who is expected to marry the leader of her peoples' enemies, Sab Than (Dominic West), with the hope that this reconciliation will bring peace. But she may also hold the key to Carter's return home.
I said that the film is not without flaws, and that's definitely true. Unlike the extremely predictable "Avatar," "John Carter" is occasionally hard to follow, what with the seemingly endless list of funny-sounding Martian names, different religions, mystical weapons, and dueling cities. The story definitely comes into focus about halfway through, but even after the film was over I still confused the names of the two lead villains, and still don't remember the name of their city (though the fact that it moves across the Martian landscape like a giant hovercraft was pretty cool). The story itself is practically as old as storytelling (a young warrior fights to defend the honor of a princess), but there are enough wrinkles to keep it from being too predictable. There are quite a few convenient moments, particularly in the final act, and some of the dialogue is undeniably clunky. The acting occasionally veers into melodramatic, particularly on the part of Collins, and Kitsch has no shortage of scenery chewing moments. Mark Strong is yet again typecast as emotionless villain Matai Shang; he almost looks bored at having to deliver another one-note performance. He's shown flashes of excellence in earlier roles in "Body of Lies" and "RockNRolla," and was Oscar-worthy in last year's "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," but it really just feels like he's going through the motions here.
So that's the bad; what about the good? The good, and what makes me recommend "John Carter" unequivocally despite its flaws, is the sheer spectacle. Director Andrew Stanton makes his live-action debut with this film, following huge successes with Pixar's "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E," and it's clear that he knows how to tell a story and deliver an immensely entertaining cinematic experience. The story may be as old as time, but as I said, the script (co-written by Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon), threw enough slight curve balls to keep me interested. You definitely care for these characters and what happens to them, which is a testament to the performances. Yes they're somewhat melodramatic in places, but Kitsch, and Collins in particular, do bring enough emotion that you're definitely rooting for them to end up together by the end of the film. I never know how to evaluate motion-capture performances, because it's really impossible to tell how much of the emotion in those characters comes from the actors and how much is rendered by the effects team. But Tars Tarkas is definitely a sympathetic (and quite multidimensional) character, as is fellow Thark Sola (Samantha Morton). The effects work all around is spectacular; the film had a much-reported $250 million budget, but it was definitely put to good use, as these aliens rival those from "District 9" in their realism and are really probably as well-done as the ultimate in motion capture characters, Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." And while the effects are numerous, they never overwhelm the film, they merely serve it, as the best visual effects should do. There's also a refreshing absence of green screen work, as only a couple scenes looked like they were completely CGI environments, and Stanton is to be commended for using real sets and real locations that are eschewed by so many big-budget directors today.
There's also no shortage of spectacle and Stanton definitely has an acute visual eye for these action sequences, particularly one early in the film which involves Carter leaping through the air between several battling airships. This is also most definitely the goriest Disney film ever made, and though they get by on the "Lord of the Rings Rule" (as long as the blood isn't red, you can get a PG-13; such is the ludicrousness of the MPAA, but that's a topic for another day), but there is no shortage of blue Martian blood, along with much hacking, slashing, impaling, dismemberment, and decapitation. I refuse to see 3D versions of any film, but I've read that this one has received a particularly poor and useless post-conversion (it was shot on film with wide-angle lenses, the best format possible in my opinion but the worst for converting to 3D). So save the extra five dollars and see it in 2D.
Overall, "John Carter" is simply a big, entertaining, sci-fi spectacle. It has some flaws, but unless you get overwhelmed by the strange names and religions, you'll almost certainly have a good time. It's not particularly groundbreaking, but it has action, adventure, romance, and all sorts of alien creatures...in short, exactly what a sci-fi event film should be.
"John Carter" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.
Running time: 132 minutes.
Released domestically on March 9, 2012, by Walt Disney Pictures.
3 stars out of 4.
I only bring up "Avatar" because the basic conceits of the two films are quite similar: a human finds himself on another world and is drawn into a conflict to defend its people. "John Carter" is based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel A Princess of Mars, the first in a series of eleven sci-fi stories that James Cameron has cited as among the inspirations for "Avatar." George Lucas has also cited them as among the inspirations for the "Star Wars" series, so if you see things here similar to those films, at least know that this story came first.
The film is book-ended with scenes of a young Burroughs (Daryl Sabara), as he investigates the estate of his uncle, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch). The film then flashes back to 1868 where we meet Carter, a Civil War veteran who, through a series of events I won't spoil, finds himself transported to Mars (or "Barsoom," as the natives call it). Due to the weaker gravitational pull and lower atmospheric density, Carter finds himself capable of super-human strength and has the ability to leap great distances, which instantly makes him a coveted weapon to the three different peoples of Mars who are engaged in a brutal civil war of their own. He first meets the Tharks, a race of nine-foot-tall, four-armed, green beings led by Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe in a motion capture performance). He also meets the beautiful princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins), who is expected to marry the leader of her peoples' enemies, Sab Than (Dominic West), with the hope that this reconciliation will bring peace. But she may also hold the key to Carter's return home.
I said that the film is not without flaws, and that's definitely true. Unlike the extremely predictable "Avatar," "John Carter" is occasionally hard to follow, what with the seemingly endless list of funny-sounding Martian names, different religions, mystical weapons, and dueling cities. The story definitely comes into focus about halfway through, but even after the film was over I still confused the names of the two lead villains, and still don't remember the name of their city (though the fact that it moves across the Martian landscape like a giant hovercraft was pretty cool). The story itself is practically as old as storytelling (a young warrior fights to defend the honor of a princess), but there are enough wrinkles to keep it from being too predictable. There are quite a few convenient moments, particularly in the final act, and some of the dialogue is undeniably clunky. The acting occasionally veers into melodramatic, particularly on the part of Collins, and Kitsch has no shortage of scenery chewing moments. Mark Strong is yet again typecast as emotionless villain Matai Shang; he almost looks bored at having to deliver another one-note performance. He's shown flashes of excellence in earlier roles in "Body of Lies" and "RockNRolla," and was Oscar-worthy in last year's "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy," but it really just feels like he's going through the motions here.
So that's the bad; what about the good? The good, and what makes me recommend "John Carter" unequivocally despite its flaws, is the sheer spectacle. Director Andrew Stanton makes his live-action debut with this film, following huge successes with Pixar's "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E," and it's clear that he knows how to tell a story and deliver an immensely entertaining cinematic experience. The story may be as old as time, but as I said, the script (co-written by Stanton, Mark Andrews, and Michael Chabon), threw enough slight curve balls to keep me interested. You definitely care for these characters and what happens to them, which is a testament to the performances. Yes they're somewhat melodramatic in places, but Kitsch, and Collins in particular, do bring enough emotion that you're definitely rooting for them to end up together by the end of the film. I never know how to evaluate motion-capture performances, because it's really impossible to tell how much of the emotion in those characters comes from the actors and how much is rendered by the effects team. But Tars Tarkas is definitely a sympathetic (and quite multidimensional) character, as is fellow Thark Sola (Samantha Morton). The effects work all around is spectacular; the film had a much-reported $250 million budget, but it was definitely put to good use, as these aliens rival those from "District 9" in their realism and are really probably as well-done as the ultimate in motion capture characters, Gollum in "The Lord of the Rings." And while the effects are numerous, they never overwhelm the film, they merely serve it, as the best visual effects should do. There's also a refreshing absence of green screen work, as only a couple scenes looked like they were completely CGI environments, and Stanton is to be commended for using real sets and real locations that are eschewed by so many big-budget directors today.
There's also no shortage of spectacle and Stanton definitely has an acute visual eye for these action sequences, particularly one early in the film which involves Carter leaping through the air between several battling airships. This is also most definitely the goriest Disney film ever made, and though they get by on the "Lord of the Rings Rule" (as long as the blood isn't red, you can get a PG-13; such is the ludicrousness of the MPAA, but that's a topic for another day), but there is no shortage of blue Martian blood, along with much hacking, slashing, impaling, dismemberment, and decapitation. I refuse to see 3D versions of any film, but I've read that this one has received a particularly poor and useless post-conversion (it was shot on film with wide-angle lenses, the best format possible in my opinion but the worst for converting to 3D). So save the extra five dollars and see it in 2D.
Overall, "John Carter" is simply a big, entertaining, sci-fi spectacle. It has some flaws, but unless you get overwhelmed by the strange names and religions, you'll almost certainly have a good time. It's not particularly groundbreaking, but it has action, adventure, romance, and all sorts of alien creatures...in short, exactly what a sci-fi event film should be.
"John Carter" is rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.
Running time: 132 minutes.
Released domestically on March 9, 2012, by Walt Disney Pictures.
3 stars out of 4.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)