Today's Review: X-Men: Apocalypse

Still behind on all the stuff I wrote, but slowly gaining.

X-Men: Apocalypse - Recensie

'Third one is always the worst' says Jean Grey when leaving the theater after watching Return of the Jedi back in '83. She was right about that one, and conscious or unconscious (I doubt the writer intended for this movie to be the weakest in the second X-trilogy), she's also correct about X-Men: Apocalypse. However, also like Return of the Jedi, Apocalypse still is a whole lot of mutant fun for those who didn't expect the franchise to reach new heights anyway.

Granted, it's not the story that provides the mirth, since it's the stuff of repetition, variations on themes and lack of narrative evolution. Basically, another all-powerful mutant rears his head and threatens to destroy the world for mankind so that its stronger successors can take over. And once again, the X-Men, fighting for peace between man and mutant, must get together to stop this megalomaniacal scheme from becoming reality. This time, it's not Magneto who has hatched the diabolical plan, but rather a 5,000 year old ideological predecessor, an ancient Egyptian once worshiped as a god, with the modern moniker Apocalypse. Magneto, once more masterfully performed by Michael Fassbender, merely provides some muscle to help Oscar Isaac's semi-god with his evil shenanigans. Isaac does a decent job playing an age old villain, but he's no Fassbender and his Apocalypse is nowhere near as intimidating or intriguing as the much more relatable Magneto.

Still, the villain suffices for the cause of bringing together two generations of X-Men, the First Class lot and the new batch of young recruits, including novel takes on classic X-characters Cyclops, Jean Grey and Nightcrawler. Their performances and their chemistry make us hopeful for the future of the franchise, should the studio feel like using them for the next installment Apocalypse seems to be building up to. For although it's meant as a conclusion to a trilogy, the ground work is amply laid for more to come and these young stars succeed in making us curious about what lies ahead. The new additions to the cast are aided by snappy dialogue and light humour, making the shortcomings in the plot not nearly as blatant as they would have been in lesser hands. Nevertheless, it's clear director Bryan Singer, who has made his fourth X-movie with this title, has run out of ideas for the X-universe. Though we appreciate his work on both trilogies, new blood would be equally welcome in the creative room as it proved in the cast.

Today's News: big bad breaking! And then some

It's been a good start of the week for movie news, mostly because of one single bomb Marvel dropped.

Marvel past releaseplanning aan voor Spider-Man

And here it is. Or rather, here's the follow-up, as the main news item that Marvel has gotten Spider-Man back in the fold was posted by a colleague of mine (bastard!). But here's the first few ramifications for Marvel's Phase 3, with many more likely to follow in the next few years. Good thing about such major nerdgasmic news is it gives one inspiration for a column (or two), which I hope to pen this weekend. So I'll reserve my actual opinion on whether Spider-Man at last joining the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a good idea or not - for it's definitely not all sunshine in Marvel land with the webhead swinging his way through his fellow superheroes - for that opinionated piece to follow. Unless one of my colleagues beats me on that front as well. Not an unlikely scenario, since anything Marvel has a tendency to get people talking or in this case typing. That said, I am looking very much forward to seeing what take on the new webslinger will be applied to the new movie(s). I wasn't a fan of the way Sony handled the Amazing Spider-Man movies, nor of how they ended Raimi's trilogy. My nerd sense is telling me there's plenty of room for improvement. From the details, it's likely Marvel will turn to their Ultimate Universe for inspiration, a move I don't lament at all. I'm currently re-reading Ultimate Spider-Man - coincidentally, as I started doing so two weeks before this news broke - and it once again proves an utterly delightful and catchy read, that also goes to illustrate many an excellent possibility of hooking up Spidey with other Marvel names, without hurting any of them. I can only hope the new movie, plus Spider-Man's appearance in those of others, will turn out half as well as those comics did.

Eerste trailer serie Bloodline

Looks decent, but I have a hard time envisioning this as a long running show. The concept seems too limited to continue for more than a season or two, and from what I gather, it's Netflix' intention to keep it going as long as desirable. Then again, I once had similar reservations about this series called Breaking Bad, and look how positively that turned out against everybody's expectations. Of course, every character has a background you can delve into, but it feels like there's only so many startling family secrets you can reveal until it eithers gets boring or ludicrous. But what do I know, I've only seen this trailer, which no doubt totally limits our imaginations for this show. There's undoubtedly more to it than what's pictured here. Still, I can't help but get a distinct Festen vibe from this. A family tearing itself apart when the black sheep of the bunch starts digging up shady past events certainly sounds very familiar to those who'll recall the classic Thomas Vinterberg film. However, even if the basic premise is remarkably similar, we can expect there to be a lot more going on in a 13-episode season than in a two-hour movie. There better be, if Netflix hopes to keep this show going.

Lawrence en Pratt beoogd voor Passengers

Here's a premise that probably is better suited for a two-hour movie than for an entire season of episodes. Man accidentally wakes up in cryosleep on a spaceship during a voyage that ought to take decades. Man knowingly wakes up woman for companionship on trip. Whatever happens, happens. As to what happens exactly, I dunno. I can think of a thing or two, either involving bloodshed or sex, or both. It's one of those intriguing notions that gets the mind working after only two sentences of conceptual layout. But as for me, a Sci-Fi geek, you had me at 'spaceship'. As for who can play these characters, Lawrence and Pratt are decent choices, at least one of them sizzling with talent. However, I would have gone for someone else than the current go-to, default hot actor and actress in Hollywood. Both of them seem kinda omnipresent today. For a movie that largely revolves around two people only, I'd say it's better not to cast movie stars, but "real actors" instead, to avoid getting that feeling of seeing Pratt and Lawrence talking to each other for hours (even though that is what is going on, but we need to be able to suspend our disbelief and pretend they're somebody else). A project like this seems better suited to lesser known (but not necessarily lesser talented) actors. Even though that would make it a tougher sell to most audiences, who just want to see Pawrence and Pratt talking to each other for a few hours. But that's what people invented talk shows for.

Lionsgate wil meer Hunger Games

Speaking of Jennifer Lawrence, Lionsgate wants to see more of her. Or at least, they want to see more of that precious dough she keeps making the studio doing her Hunger Games thing. Or they want more material that carries the Hunger Games signature, potentially without the principal talent, since I imagine Lawrence is kinda done with the series when it ends. But studios are never done making huge piles of cash. So when something sells, you keep it selling as long as you can. And so the studio is looking for new ways to "flesh out" (read: ruthlessly exploit) their top franchise after it has properly come to an end. They're looking at both prequel and sequel opportunites, it's stated. Meaning, they don't care about the actual contents, they're just considering any and all ways that keep the franchise running for longer than the source material allows for. It works for Harry Potter and Warner Bros, their argument reads. We don't know that it does actually, since Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them hasn't been released to popular or financial acclaim (yet). Plus, author J.K. Rowling is in full cahoots on that new series of films, while it remains to be seen whether writer Suzanne Collins is as enchanted by the notion of more Hunger Games. So for now, it's only a studio's dream of more money without any material to back up the reality behind that line of thinking. May the odds be ever in their favor.

Eerste trailer Hitman: Agent 47

Or they can just start their franchise over again entirely. Seems to be working for Hitman, since this trailer already looks better than all of the previous film. Of course, that film wasn't a hit in any way the first Hunger Games was, hence the option for rebooting. There's (fortunately!) a form of unwritten decency protecting the audience against rebooting a franchise the moment the first take on it has been completed. Otherwise we would have had three more Lord of the Rings trilogies by now. But when a film failed to connect to its audience strongly enough to warrant a sequel, yet still holds potential for making more money, a reboot is always just around the corner. Often for the better, since in many cases a reboot improved upon its predecessor and ushered in a new era for the franchise. Time will tell whether that holds true for Hitman: Agent 47 as well. It's still a videogame adaptation too, after all. They usually have more running against them than films based on other media properties.

Today's Review: The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1

It's been (quite!) a while, but I finally got around to visit another press screening for MS and post the result here:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/158000/the_hunger_games_mockingjay_-_part_1_-_recensie

This film series doesn't seem to get any worse, despite all the young adult franchise trademarks trying to put a dent in its reputation. Splitting a book into two movies was obviously a financial move on the studio's part, and undoubtedly will pay off big time. However, that doesn't hinder the movie from being a solid piece of work, despite not being a whole story. It's best compared to the first installment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, which underwent a similar theatrical treatment and enjoys equally similar themes in its story of teenagers on the run for a ruthless government. Plus, it's on the same level of quality. Character development is at an all-time high in Mockingjay - Part 1, thanks to a plot that doesn't leave much room, or need, for big bombastic action scenes or endless droning about which bland boy Katniss likes to kiss most, though there's still a few of those interspersed here and there. Politics and intrigue are thriving, as Katniss finds herself in the company of new allies who are not all that different from the Capitol regime she just escaped, in their unrelenting zealousness to bring the dictatorship down. Thanks to the talented cast - mainly, Jennifer Lawrence and all the experienced veterans featured in way too small parts: the rest of the younger cast leaves less of an impression, as before - and a director who once again shows he knows what he's doing, the movie forms a compelling continuation of Catching Fire as well as a great set-up for the finale. It comes complete with a cliffhanger that makes you want to check out the ending at the earliest opportunity. Which unfortunately you won't get for another year's time. Job well done, then.

And boy, did I have fun this last week mocking people for having seen this much anticipated film a week earlier than everybody else. One of the most appealing aspects of press screenings but not one of the most laudable character traits of those who visit them, I'll freely admit.

Today's Triple News: interstellar hunger island

Posting one news item a day keeps boredom away:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157230/nieuwe_trailer_hunger_games_mockingjay

That's it, no more games. Are we ready for a war? Because that's what we're getting, if this trailer for the first part of Mockingjay is any indication. It surely enhances the scope of the Hunger Games world, which until so far felt a bit too limited to the actual Games of the title, rather than flushing out the wonderfully dystopian world surrounding them. Thanks to the lucrative popularity of the previous two installments, it's clear the studio sure provided the budget necessary to put this war on screen in a visually grandiose way. However, the trailer also makes no mistake in revealing that it's still mostly about the characters. That's good, as there's a lot of them we're emotionally invested in and we want to know their plight. However, in the case of the obligatory love triangle - truly a staple of the popular young adult fantasy genre that studios don't dare to shed, because it draws so many scores of screaming teenage girls - between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, here's to hoping that particular bit of character development isn't going to take precedence over the rest of the story, as it's obvious there's a lot more at stake than just the lives of three love smitten teens, and most of it is far more interesting to behold. Like hovercrafts shot down by explosive arrows!

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157247/nieuwe_poster_interstellar

I must admit I find this first post-teaser poster on the dull side. It's obvious Christopher Nolan still doesn't want to give too much of the plot away, so the new poster doesn't reveal any more than we already know, which is that Matthew McConaughey (pictured) plays an astronaut who travels through a wormhole (not pictured) with some scientists (not pictured) in hopes of finding a new planet for humanity to prosper on after they've made a mess of their own globe (not pictured, I think). The brave new world the protagonist encounters is seen on this poster - or so we are to believe judging from the trailer, which maybe we ought not to do - and it doesn't look too inviting. Maybe the tagline is deceiving us, maybe there's something else going on and we shouldn't judge a whole planet just by the appearance of a small region. After all, there's places on Earth that look like that too (which is where they shot the film, I reckon). Point is, this poster tells us nothing new about the movie. And since this is a Christopher Nolan movie, there's probably a lot more to tell, since they tend to be stuffed with exposition and plot angles. Can't say the same for the posters used to sell them to the audience.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157246/hiddleston_gaat_naar_skull_island

Interesting bit of casting here. Hiddleston isn't the kind of name I had expected to see in this type of old-fashioned adventure flick. But then, neither was arthouse/independent darling Adrien Brody in the 2005 King Kong and that worked out well enough. Besides, information still is sketchy about what this movie's plot actually involves, apart from humans visiting the eerie, barely habitable Skull Island prior to Kong thrashing the Big Apple. We're still even unsure about whether Kong himself will make any appearance at all in this film. There will be ferocious creatures present though, that's been established. Wouldn't be much of a Skull Island without creepy crawlies eating people. Hiddleston probably isn't one of those snacks, as he plays the protagonist. But what kind of character that entails is still kept in the dark. Maybe a sailor or some other nautically experienced type of everyman. Whatever it's gonna be, I'm glad to see Loki Hiddleston in this picture, as his performance in the Marvel Cinematic Universe was one of the finest comic book character interpretations to date, convincing me of his considerable prowess as an actor. And though this isn't based on a comic, the subject material isn't exactly far off either. As for the choice of director, I have nothing to say about his merits as I remain unfamiliar with his works, few as they are. I hope he's a type of upstart prodigy who will do the film justice, but I'm sure he's not gonna be the next Peter Jackson. Would have been nice to see PJ handling this film, but his King Kong story has been done and I doubt his heart would be in another.

Today's News: loads of it

The haul of news from the last week:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157156/nieuwe_trailer_oorlogsfilm_fury_met_brad_pitt

Last trailer focused on the action, this one's more about the drama. Can't say it looks any better when given more substance. Rookie soldiers faced with the moral burdens of battle has been done since time immemorial. Same goes for small bands of soldiers stuck behind enemy lines on suicide missions (Saving Private Ryan is just the tip of the iceberg there, you know). Heck, even Brad Pitt has dabbled in that before with Inglourious Basterds. Big change here is that particular persona of his didn't seem to mind his hard times as much as this one, even though in terms of character there don't seem to be that many differences between Wardaddy and Lt. Aldo Raine. I really hope there's more to the movie that what the trailers are showing us. Though if we're comparing notes, that certainly was the case with Inglourious Basterds, which turned out to incorporate a whole lot more to the plot than just the bloody retributions exacted on Nazis we were promised (though that element surely was also retained, to a lesser extent). On the other thand, there's the example to the opposite, in which the trailer promised more than the actual film delivered, like on the recent forgetabble The Monuments Men. Let's just say this tank can still roll either way.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157184/23_jump_street_aangekondigd

As the end credits for 22 Jump Street revealed, there's at least twenty more scenarios for the franchise's protagonists to get involved in. Of course the studio feels like trying out at least one more considering the success of that sequel. Will it be one of the outrageous possibilities offered by those end titles? Probably not, most of them seem a little too farfetched for any "serious" comedy flick. Doesn't mean there aren't enough possibilities for infiltrations taking zany turns left. Not that I need to see them. I have learned long ago that the number of sequels to successful comedies worth our while is pretty low indeed. Blatant regurgitation is their usual motto, a point the first film, 21 Jump Street (see the numerical pattern here?), already made both hilariously and painfully clear when the angry black police captain gave his poignant and speech about law enforcement officials just recycling old ideas ad nauseam, which was the movie at its most self-aware note. And here we have the prove studio execs do the same. Like we needed any proof...

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157183/eerste_fotos_batmobile_uit_batman_v_superman

I approve of this Batmobile. Not too realistic, not too unrealistic. Not too tacky, not too slick. Fits right into Zack Snyder's new DC-verse, while containing many a nod to past works, most notable Nolan's Tumbler design from the Dark Knight movies. The bat motif is not too obvious or overt, but definitely there. This basically is exactly the badass type of vehicle an angry billionaire would patrol the streets at night with to punish the guilty and protect the innocent, rather than doing drugs, banging scores of prostitutes and not giving a damn about the rest of the world because he is loaded, like real world billionaires prefer to do instead. Of course, we have yet to see it in action and discover its various funky gadgets - does it, too, feature a built-in escape vehicle and a self-destruct option, for example? - but in terms of looks and style this is right up Gotham's alleys. Good thing Hans Zimmer is still doing the music for the epic DC movies. Just add his stormy, percussive Dark Knight theme and this car is good to go.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157209/eerste_trailer_serena

Why change a winning team, the casting director of Serena must have thought? Cooper & Lawrence together have been the stuff of Oscars so far, and this movie clearly shows Academy Award aspirations, if the trailer is any indication. However, this movie is not directed by David O'Russell. Guess we'll find out whether it was the director that got the best out of his actors on Silver Linings Playbook and American Hustle both, or whether it may have been the material after all. Susanne Bier certainly isn't a stranger in terms of character, since her movies often border on character studies, which equally seems to be the case on Serena. The language barrier doesn't seem to be present, as this is hardly her first English spoken film. This trailer definitely reaffirms the third time remains the charm.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157208/robert_downey_jr_mogelijk_in_assassins_creed

I'm starting to get a sort of 'Johnny Depp vibe' whenever Robert Downey Jr.'s latest project is mentioned. As Depp revels in playing quirky oddball types, Downey Jr. now seems to stick predominantly to playing witty, scienctifically considerate charmers (e.g. Sherlock Holmes and Tony Stark/Iron Man) when it comes to big budget Hollywood movies. He does that well, so the part of Leonardo da Vinci seems perfectly suited to him. However, as has been the case with Depp for quite a while, it's getting a routine, which may lead to typecasting (though I bet Downey Jr.'s hefty pay grade will halt such thoughts on studio execs' minds). Of course, there's many other types of characters Downey Jr. plays in smaller films in-between blockbusters (the Oscar buzzing The Judge would be a current example), but those are not the ones most audiences will get to see so they'll learn to appreciate the diversity inherent in his talent. Considering he's now the highest paid actor in Hollywood, it is interesting to see him accepting a sidekick part for a change. Unless Da Vinci is actually the assassin, which I have a hard time believing, though there is some logic to that notion. But then, I never played the games so what do I know? Don't have time for games, too busy watching and loving movies. Like those starring Downey Jr., for example.

Today's Triple News: dark equalizer games

It took a while for worthy news to appear online, but after a week of not posting any, I got back in shape:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157083/nieuwe_trailer_monsters_dark_continent_

Wow, the scope of this franchise certainly got a lot bigger. In fact, we can finally speak of a franchise now. Not that these are positive developments per se. It's happened countless times before that a cheaply produced movie that connected with an audience got one or more unwanted sequels that failed to do so again. Even though Monsters made its money back (it was hard not to, considering its shoestring budget) and its director, Gareth Edwards, has since gone on to dabble in big budget, heavy FX films like Godzilla and now Star Wars, I doubt many people will be familiar with the original movie when the sequel hits theaters. In fact, I kinda suspect this will be released straight to VOD and the home video market in the Netherlands. It hasn't got much going for it to warrant a theatrical release here. There's no big names in the cast, it's not released by a major studio and the Monsters franchise won't ring a bell to so many people. Apart from the home cinema market, this is really the stuff of film festivals and such (bet we'll be seeing this on Imagine 2015!). Considering Monsters: Dark Continent, too, is done on not that large a budget (though still considerably more than the peanuts its predecessor cost), that doesn't necessarily mean the movie is doomed in tersm of boxoffice. Wouldn't surprise me if this too made enough dough to excuse a third installment. Again without Edwards, who will be slaving away on Godzilla 2 in Hollywood by that time.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157093/nieuwe_trailer_en_poster_the_equalizer

Though there's some good people in the cast, this movie doesn't excite me in the least. Man with a shady past and a talent of getting things done the violent way turns vigilante and fights the mob on his own. Nothing new here. Except maybe it's the Russian mob ingredient, as muscle flexing Russians are kind of a thing in the media right now. Denzel Washington seems very capable in the lead role. Also not a surprise, as this character bears similarities to his persona in Training Day, which, under the guidance of the same director, won him an Oscar over a decade ago. Seems like actor and director figured they might find similar success again doing a similar thing. At least Marton Csokas looks positively creepy as the Russian mob boss (which I know perfectly well he's capable of, as he's an underestimated character actor in my mind) and Chloë Grace Moretz sheds her Hit Girl image a bit by playing the victim for once. She makes a cute underage prostitute, enough for any middle-aged man to get sentimental over when she's taking punches in public. Of course, this movie will do well enough because people keep falling for runaway vigilantes effectively fighting a one-man war against crime. That's what we all wished we could do when it came down to it, eh? I bet Washington will succeed in his noble quest in The Equalizer, as there don't seem to be many surprises here otherwise. He'll probably die in the process though, or something like that. Unless they want to keep an opening for a second film. Remind me again, why did this typical action flick take precedence in IMAX over the visually much more intriguing The Maze Runner?

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/157114/eerste_poster_katniss_voor_hunger_games_mockingjay

It took a while, but there's finally a Mockingjay teaser poster for Katniss Everdeen too. Virtually the entire supporting cast had preceded her until now, either in Capitol prisoner gard or full-on revolutionary soldier gear. Now that the main character has been added to the teaser campaign, it's high time the visually more enticing one-sheets were rolled out. If Catching Fire's poster campaign is any indication, it seems like Mockingjay will easily outdo it. Recurring theme of course being the Mockingjay itself, which already made its presence known on virtually all of the earlier ad artwork. It's done more subtly on this latest teaser poster though, but the message is pretty clear as it leaves little to the imagination that once again the nature of Katniss as a symbol for rebellion against tyranny (whether she likes it or not) is emphasized. And Jannifer Lawrence's backside looks good too, as always.

Today's (Semi)Review: American Hustle

Wrote this one as an informative piece for Filmhuis Alkmaar, but since at this point it's the question whether this title will make it for release in that arthouse-theater for various reasons, I might as well post it here on my blog, and save me the effort of writing it again in English (though in that case it would have been longer and more detailed). Considering it's kind of a puff piece and there's no room for exploring the movie's downsides - you want to entice people to go see the movie by pretending there's nothing to hold against it after all; you're basically performing a con yourself, so to speak - I can't honestly describe it as the most balanced of reviews. That said, I found little to be wrong with this movie, save for the ending which, like most movies dealing with hustles and con artists, typically leaves something to be desired in terms of credibility. We're led to believe the situation is what it is, until it suddenly makes a 180 degree turn and things happen to fit together quite differently, stretching the limits of how much we're willing to swallow. However, the strong personalities and terrific performances of the cast, coupled with delicious production design and gorgeous costumes and make-up, make it all the more acceptable for us to be conned as hard as we turn out to be. American Hustle is worth checking out on those accounts alone.

American Hustle: ****/*****, or 8/10

'Sommige van het volgende is echt gebeurd', is de boodschap waarmee American Hustle opent. Het is zoveel eerlijkheid als je gaat krijgen van regisseur David O'Russell (The Fighter, Silver Linings Playbook), die geen overdreven historisch accurate pretenties koestert in deze bewerking van de FBI's Abscam-operatie aan het einde van de jaren zeventig. Voor dit luchtige misdaad-drama bewijst O'Russell eens te meer een uiterst bekwaam acteursregisseur te zijn, die het beste uit zijn hoofdrolspelers haalt om zijn verhaal over de oplichterspraktijken van hun personages te vertellen. Zijn alle acteurs immers niet bedriegers?

American Hustle vertelt over het duo 'con artists' Irving Rosenfeld (Christian Bale) en Sydney Prosser (Amy Adams) die na een mislukte poging tot fraude door FBI-agent Richie DiMaso (Bradley Cooper) ingezet worden in een heimelijke operatie om mogelijk corrupte politici uit de tent te lokken. Een neppe zakendeal met een Arabische sjeik die wil investeren in Amerikaanse projecten moet beelden vastleggen van burgemeesters en senatoren die smeergeld aannemen en zo als omkoopbaar aan de kaak gesteld kunnen worden. Het is een gewaagd plan dat Irving en Sydney slechts onder dreiging met een gevangenisstraf kunnen aannemen. Onder druk van het onvoorspelbare gedrag van Irvings vrouw Rosalyn (Jennifer Lawrence) en zijn onverwachte vriendschap met hun eerste slachtoffer, de energieke burgemeester Polito (Jeremy Renner) van Atlantic City, wordt de zwendel steeds uitgebreider en moeilijker in toom te houden. Als vervolgens ook nog de maffia bij het stiekeme schandaal betrokken raakt heeft de operatie zo'n grootscheepse omvang aangenomen dat het onmogelijk lijkt het geheel nog tot een goed einde te brengen. Kunnen Irving en Sydney zich het vege lijf nog redden in deze schijnbaar totaal uit de hand gelopen situatie?

O'Russell begreep wel dat hij een sterk staaltje geschiedenis in handen had dat door zijn publiek met een flinke korrel zout genomen zou worden. Het maakte hem er slechts vastberadener op American Hustle te serveren als een sterk verhaal dat de kijker diverse keren op het verkeerde been zet, met een juiste balans tussen drama en humor om de bizarre aspecten van de Abscam-zeepbel te onderstrepen. Zijn grootste troef blijkt echter zijn fabuleuze acteursensemble dat elkaar bijkans van het scherm af probeert te spelen in veelal geïmproviseerde scènes, waarin ze het meer van hun gevoel als begenadigde acteurs moesten hebben dan van een script dat hun dialoog netjes op een rijtje zette. De acteurs en hun personages vullen elkaar uitstekend aan, met Bale als de ervaren maar voorzichtige oplichter met overgewicht; Adams als zijn partner-in-crime en stiekeme liefde van zijn leven; Lawrence als het secreet van een echtgenote, volstrekt egocentrisch en onverantwoordelijk: Cooper als de gedreven maar overambitieuze FBI-agent; en Renner als de sympathieke en gepassioneerde burgemeester met maffiabanden. Dat Bale, Adams, Lawrence en Cooper allen beloond werden met een Oscarnominatie blijkt geheel terecht en bewijst dat ze O'Russells beproeving moeiteloos doorstaan hebben. Het sublieme acteerwerk maakt de film een feest om naar te kijken.

Het sterke spel van zijn acteurs is niet het enige dat American Hustle tot een valse maar toch geslaagde cinematische vertelling van het Abscam-schandaal maakt. O'Russell doet de late jaren zeventig ook voortreffelijk herleven dankzij het visueel schitterende productiedesign. Ook hier vormen de acteurs het stralend middelpunt dankzij de nauwgezette reconstructie van de uitgebreide mode en weelderige haarstijl uit die periode. Maar ook de tijdsgeest waarin zij vertoeven, de auto's en technologie van weleer, wordt met de nodige flair nieuw leven ingeblazen, en weet zich daarbij gesteund door een hippe soundtrack die met een vette knipoog naar het Amerika van destijds refereert. Het geheel sleurt de kijker volledig mee in de deceptie, maar de relativerende humor die het absurdistische van het schandaal onderschrijft zorgt er doeltreffend voor dat de toeschouwer gepaste afstand houdt met het wel en wee van de oneerlijke personages als hun zwendel op een gevaarlijk kookpunt dreigt af te stevenen. Hoe grotesker de uitkomst, hoe leuker voor ons.

O'Russell maakt er geen groot geheim van dat hij ons diverse keren op het verkeerde spoor zet en ons bedriegt door het niet zo nauw te nemen met de historische feiten. Zijn hervertelling van de Abscam-operatie is letterlijk zowel te bizar als te mooi om waar te zijn, maar met een prachtig eindresultaat als American Hustle maken we daar geen enkel moment bezwaar tegen.

Today's Review: The Hunger Games: Catching Fire

I had the privilege of reviewing the next installment for The Hunger Games last week, and here's the result as posted on MovieScene today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/151677/the_hunger_games_catching_fire_-_recensie

It got edited down a bit due to length, as is usual for my MS reviews. Some of the sentences don't run as smoothly as my original intention was, but you get the gist: I was quite positive about the film. It was a worthy successor to the first film and in many ways surpassed it. Nor was the much dreaded love triangle, though still present, as much as an obstacle for the flow of the film and the attention of the audience as I initially feared. Though still not perfect, Catching Fire did about everything The Hunger Games did, except bigger and to more gripping results.

This was also my first major press viewing. Whereas most of the ones I attended so far drew crowds of no more than 20 people, this particular screening witnessed at least 80 attendees from all over the country. It was a more formal showing too, complete with security taking the audience's cell phones in custody to prevent potential illegal copying. They didn't find one on me, much to their surprise and my entertainment. Furthermore, the distributor tried to bribe us with copies of the book and a neat little mockingjay brooch. Considering my 8/10 rating, they might as well have succeeded. I'm currently reading that book, which is odd, since I haven't read the first novel and I usually refrain from reading Dutch translations from books originally written in the English language. Maybe it's simply a good read, even though I preferred the movie (which follows the original text fairly closely I must add). To top it all, the screening was held at my actual job location, so I surprised and frustrated my colleagues, hard at work at that time, by appearing on the job only to disappear into the theatre to watch a film they all desperately wanted to see for themselves. And of course I bragged about it the rest of the week, for such is my nature. All in all, I much enjoyed this first big shot press screening of mine and I sure hope more will follow (though sadly I just lost out on the second Hobbit film).

It seems the odds where in my favor on this one.

Today's News: Hot off Comic-Con 2013

A double portion of news today from MS, but Comic-Con tends to have that effect everywhere on the Internet:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148730/avengers_2_gaat_avengers_age_of_ultron_heten

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/148731/nieuwe_trailer_the_hunger_games_catching_fire

So we have a new trailer for The Hunger Games: Catching Fire and Avengers 2 got itself a name and hence, a lot more speculation for the fans to endure for the next few years. The former news is the least intriguing, since this trailer would have been released around this time of big summer blockbuster movies anyway, to get people excited about the upcoming big winter movies. It's a good new trailer, with more emphasis on character and emotion than on story and action like the teaser featured. It's agreeable to see Catching Fire won't ignore such pivotal aspects, even if they lead towards a major Twilight-y love triangle - you know, the type with one girl and two boys, and nobody seems to opt for a simple threesome - we can't care less about. The notion of another Hunger Games with Katniss as the star seems redundant, but is a vital strategy for the regime to kill off the champions of the resistance against its regime, and of course this time it won't be just teenagers killing each other, as they have rebellious plans of their own. Blatant recycling of plot elements seems absent for now. And with a stellar cast like this (Philip Seymour Hoffman!) this is still a sequel to look forward to, despite all the teeny aspects.

Naturally it's the second installment of The Avengers, fortunately still directed and written by Joss Whedon, that we can look forward to even more. We'll have to wait a while longer for it, but we still have ample Marvel movies leading up to it (though it seems Ant-Man will now follow this finale of Phase 2 instead of precede it, thus paving the way for Marvel's Phase 3). But with 50 years of Marvel Universe history there is plenty to think on as details slowly dripple in. One such detail, a major one in fact, is the official title, which now has been revealed to be Avengers: Age of Ultron. It leaves no mistake who the villain of the piece will be: the genocidal, haywire android Ultron, originally built by Henry "Hank" Pym (Ant-Man/Yellowjacket/Giant Man/wife beater). In this post for MovieScene I suggested Pym will most likely be established in Avengers 2 via his connection to Ultron, and afterwards fully fleshed out in his own Ant-Man flick, but time has already caught up with that, as it has now been confirmed Pym will not be present in Avengers: Age of Ultron at all. Whedon has stated the origin of Ultron will be explored via other means, the most obvious idea being Tony Stark will create the misantropic machine instead while assembling new Iron Man suits (after his last single adventure he needs some after all). This remains to be seen no doubt. Maybe Whedon will surprise us, as he has done before in the past (he's a fairly talented writer after all). The other big question now is whether Ultron will be portrayed by a guy in a suit - he is rather anthropomorphic so it's not inconceivable - or whether he will be a fully computer generated character with the voice work done by some incredible actor. My best bet? Get Andy Serkis to perform his usual mo-cap magic. You can't go wrong with that route.

But where's Thanos in all this? Great idea, Whedon, getting us all worked up on a villain-to-end-all-villains and then seemingly ignoring him! Or could he be in Guardians of the Galaxy after all...?

Today's News: Jennifer Lawrence back in blue!

A tidbit of news appeared on MovieScene today and it'is my fault:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147240/foto_jennifer_lawrence_in_x-men:_days_of_future_past

Good news, for various reasons. I'll quickly name the first and get over it, since it will immediately come to the minds of people who know me: I'm such a nerd sexy blue mutant women get me excited, even over ordinary girls. That's that over with. Moving on, it's nice to know Jennifer Lawrence isn't afraid to get all naked and covered in paint again - an arduous process, if we are to believe the few women who have gone through it all and survived - as she's now playing Mystique for the second time (the first was in X-Men: First Class). This time though, she's bound to have quite a bit more scenes in the (blue) buff, considering she's abandoned the X-Men and joined Magneto's Brotherhood of Mutants, thus becoming a terrorist. And who needs clothes for that if you can produce them at will? Third, it's also good to know Bryan Singer is still adhering to the X-Universe he set up with his own first two X-films, despite other directors having followed suit since. Judging from this and the other pictures released so far, Singer hasn't made any changes to the design of the characters he made us come to love a decade ago. Despite Singer's successors tampering with the time line a bit, Singer appears to stay faithful to both the fantastic original X-Men and the fabulous semi-prequel First Class. That makes for some great consistency in Fox's X-universe,which is very useful for setting up that other Marvel Cinematic Universe Fox wants to create so desperately to compete with Marvel's own Avengers. Too bad Fox's Fantastic Four won't get similar respect, but hey, it hardly deserves it as much.

If the original Mystique Rebecca Romijn's known tribulations - nine-hour make-up process, bitter cold on set - are any indication, Lawrence will be in for a rough ride, again. And she does so at free will, despite her jump to stardom caused by The Hunger Games and her recently acquired Oscar, so apparently she likes the character enough. Or it was one of those nasty contractual obligations, that would also make sense, playing Mystique at this point in her career. Maybe it was both. I like to think she likes Mystique. Who wouldn't like a naked blue woman that can alter her appearance to look like anyone dressed as anyone?!

Another reason to be excited once more over X-Men: Days of Future Past is Tyrion Lannister's Peter Dinklage's continued involvement. Especially since we still don't know who he's set to play. Us Marvel fanatics might be in for a real surprise. Or a huge letdown. But hey, it's Dinklage, so we know the performance can't be truly bad. I'm guessing he'll play Apocalypse, anyone wanna take that bet? Come on, you know this looks awesome!:

Today's News: Hunger Games 2's promotional campaign is catching fire

Here's a pretty picture I posted on MovieScene today:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/147107/nieuwe_poster_the_hunger_games_2

It's an interesting new poster conceptually. It looks old and weathered, like a Seventies' political propaganda pamphlet (which is a good sign), or a worn out romantic dime novel (which is not so appealing). I like the subtle way the advertising campaign of The Hunger Games: Catching Fire hints at the plot development of the movie itself. Katniss Everdeen starts as a celebrity in the Capitol, very much against her will, as demonstrated in the previous two posters released, where she donned one of those ugly, creepy Capitol beauty dresses to fit in with the local fashion which obviously didn't suit her. Those previous posters were dubbed 'teaser material' by the studio execs responsible for their release. Now we've arrived at the first "official poster" (such an odd term really, as if the previous material wasn't official Hunger Games stuff), and Katniss has shedded the attire the Capitol would have her wear in favour of her old, simpler garments, returning to who she really is and hence who her followers, the exploited masses yearning for freedom from tyranny, want her to be. Armed with her trusty bow she will make her stand and fight for those fans that follow her as the symbol for liberty she has become, rather than the fake champion of a morally deplorable Capitol show designed to keep the Districts in line by killing their kids publicly the shady rulers of this world designed her to be. This poster amply shows her stand, soon not quite so solitary anymore as the country will be plunged into full-scale war thanks to the choices she made. And so the perceptive audiences will have half the plot spoiled for them already simply by looking at a bunch of posters. No matter, those that watched the first film knew this was coming anyway; it's all about execution from this point on.

I'm fairly excited at the prospect of this movie. I've come to appreciate Jennifer Lawrence as a capable young actress and a witty girl (and I sure did like her covered in blue paint!). I liked the first movie despite minor shortcomings. I only hope those flaws, especially the dreaded love triangle, will not be the main focus in Catching Fire. After all, there's still plenty of elements of this particular dystopian society left unexplored apart from indecisive teenagers hungry for one another. However, there's a strong risk that will be the prime ingredient of the second installment, since The Hunger Games continues to carry a Twilight-esque stigma as being a 'teeny action flick', despite Twilight being - fortunately - over and done with. And being copied to death in unsuccessful rip-offs (The Host, Beautiful Creatures, The Mortal Instruments), something The Hunger Games clearly isn't in any way, except for the inclusion of a love triangle. But there's a real chance that's exactly what the studio means to exploit in order to attract all those teen girls that helped make Twilight so much dough. Who needs regular audiences if you have legions of obsessive fangirls backing your finanical interests?

At least this poster is spared two hunky guys standing behind Katniss, her face suggesting she's more concerned with which one to pick instead of kicking Capitol scumbag ass. So far, I like the posters, I like the trailers, but I will refrain from my expectations catching fire whilst caught in the hype, since there's still plenty of story elements that might lead to severe disappointment.

Oscars 2013: I did guess a few right

So the whole Academy Award circus for 2012 has finally come and gone. As always I have mixed feelings about the results. There were a few winners that definitely deserved to win, while a few others... not so much. And one choice was just simply atrocious. Here's the result of my guesses from January:

-Best Picture: wrong. Argo won over Zero Dark Thirty. Guess the latter was a little too controversial after all, despite being directed by the Academy's favourite female director. Oh well, Argo also makes for a deserving winner and people won't make fun of Ben Affleck for quite a while.
Second choice: also wrong. A French movie winning Best Picture, what was I thinking?! But then, why was it even nominated in the first place?

-Best Actor: wrong. Poor Joaquin, he did so well as the unstable, irrational messed up Master's disciple. But I should have known better than to bet against Daniel D-L, he's an veritable Oscar magnet.
Second choice: Daniel Day-Lewis. Correct! Next time the guy is up for an Oscar, make it easy for everybody and don't bother nominating other people, it's a waste of time.

-Best Actress: wrong. It was Jennifer Lawrence after all. Very good, Academy, not going for a new age record (youngest ever or oldest ever), but stay within previously established boundaries. Wouldn't have wanted to miss out on the accompanying sarcastic comment by Lawrence after she tripped on the stairs while going to the stage: 'you're all standing up because I fell down and it's embarrassing'. I guess those steps would have been much harder on an 85 year old actress, she wouldn't have arrived alive. You saved her life, Academy!
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Supporting Actor: wrong. Guess The Master himself isn't really the master. Philip Seymour Hoffman apparently hasn't mastered acting as much as Christoph Waltz.
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Supporting Actress: correct! Anne Hathaway, obviously. Her singing was apparently right up the Academy's alley.

-Best Director: wrong. Once again a non Indian movie about Indians having a hard time makes even the most hardened Academy veteran be moved to tears. So Ang Lee runs off with the Oscar. Not a bad choice though, but this category was definitely the hardest to predict so I'm not ashamed.
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Original Screenplay: wrong. Tarantino once again proves he can easily get away with ripping off older movies. Good flick, I must admit, but Tarantino's method of taking a genre and pastiching the shit out of it in an orgy of violence and swearing (106 'niggers', for your information: I didn't bother counting all the 'fucks') is bound to backfire on him some day.
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Adapted Screenplay: Correct! Argo, duh!

-Best Animated Feature: wrong. Now this one pisses me off, big time. The Academy ignored four superior movies over a stale princess flick like Brave?! What is this, a pity award for Pixar since they're on a creative downward spiral and everybody knows it!? The other nominees were all more original, more refined, more edgy, more daring and most of all, much more fun. Frankenweenie even made my eyes water my cheeks, dammit! There's nothing brave about going for an overly traditional, conservative, dull cartoon like this one. Epic fail, fully deserving off my 'Most cinematically pissed off moment of the year' rant.
Second choice: leave me alone, I'm angry!

-Best Foreign Picture: correct. Putting Amour back in its place, like it should be.

-Best Cinematography: correct!

-Best Editing: wrong.
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Production Design: wrong. I guess Middle-Earth just isn't cool anymore at the Academy. It's, like, soooo 2003. And it got a total of seventeen Oscars already anyway...
Second choice: correct.

-Best Costume Design: correct! I told you so, any movie starring Keira Knightley that gets Oscar nominated for putting her in funky dresses wins. It's a natural law.

-Best Make-up: wrong. Thirteen Dwarves and apparently none of them look good enough compared to suffering French people singing about their misery (even though the Dwarves basically did the same thing the entire film).
Second choice: also wrong.

-Best Music: wrong. Oh well, John Williams already has a fair amount of Oscars.
Second choice: correct.

-Best song: correct! For Skyfall, Adele didn't crumble, but she stood tall, and made us face it all together. At Skyfaaaaaaaaall!

-Best Sound Mixing: wrong.
Second choice: correct.

-Best Sound Editing: a tie?! How the bloody hell does that work?! And I voted for neither...
Second choice: I got one right at least. But seriously, what is going on here?

-Best Visual Effects: wrong. My bad, I forgot Richard Parker wasn't a real tiger. It was already confusing you know, this cat also being the father of Peter Parker in The Amazing Spider-Man. Cut me some slack!
Second choice: also wrong. Hulk sad...


So I got 6 correct, 5 second choices correct and 9 blatantly wrong. Far worse results than last year, when these things were, like, easier. How could I have known the Academy decided to get all politically correct and compromise the shit out of things here by giving every movie a little piece of the pie? And what's all this weird stuff happening here? A French movie getting five nominations? A tie for Sound Editing? Brave winning Best Animated Feature? What kind of sick conspiracy is going on here? Argo fuck yourself!

At least Jennifer Lawrence gets it. At Skyfaaaaaaaall!

The odds are mostly in our favor, mostly

The Hunger Games

Rating ****/*****, or 7/10

With the Hollywood studio executives frantically scouring the book stores in search of new potential easy-to-sell franchises to fill the huge financial gaps left by the now finished Harry Potter and soon to be completed Twilight sagas, it came as no surprise when news reached the ears of the media regarding the upcoming motion picture adaptation of the best-selling Hunger Games novels by Suzanne Collins. After all, the first novel suited the Hollywood prime audience of youths between the ages of twelve and 25 perfectly, for one thing because it was about such youths (as were the franchises mentioned above), and for another, because it turned out an excellent balance between action and drama, with enough romance and humour mixed in to appeal to most demographics, plus it had the benefit of an already existing 'big name' because of the book's popularity. Hollywood apparently did the right thing for itself by turning The Hunger Games into a movie, given the various ticket sale records already broken in the first few weeks of its theatrical run. The question is: did it do the right thing for the general audience? Judging on this first entry into what will undoubtedly become a trilogy faster than you can learn to realistically mimic a Mocking Jay's whistle (people who have already seen the film will know Jennifer Lawrence couldn't), the answer is a hesitant 'yes'. The Hunger Games, though not without flaws in both execution and overall plot, is at least an exciting thrill ride that will appease many a viewer on any dreary day, and will probably satisfy the majority of the novel's legion of fans.

Set in a dystopian society in a temporally unspecified future (a few centuries away most likely) and a geographically unestablished part of North America, The Hunger Games deals with the adventures of 16 year old Katniss Everdeen (played by rising star actress Jennifer Lawrence who's fortunately up to the task of carrying the majority of this film but still looks better covered in blue paint), an intelligent and athletic girl from District 12 of the nation of Panem. (Panem=Pan Am=all of (North) America? Or is it the Panem from 'panem et circenses' (bread and games in Latin), meaning the Capitol running this state supplies the “bread” (means of living) and the subjected Districts supply the “games” (i.e. the tributes in the form of 24 kids a year)? Witty name? Pretentious perhaps? You decide for yourself, but I think 'Panem' sounds like a silly name for any country.) The movie gives us an intriguing but all too brief history lesson into the foundation of this country's present status quo, which goes a little bit like this: in a post-apocalyptic world, the twelve poor Districts started an uprising against their rich Capitol overlord, a conflict in which the latter triumphed. As punishment for their disobedience, each District must offer annual 'tributes', namely two of its children between the ages of 12 and 18, which are pitted against the other Districts' tributes in the 'Hunger Games', a battle to the death, broadcast nation wide, with only one survivor out of the total of 24 competitors allowed.

Katniss is living the good rural life with her little sister, her mother (Deadwood's favourite whore Paula Malcomson) and her hunky loverboy Gale (Liam Hemsworth, Thor's brother). Of course, all good things must come to an end, especially this early in the film, so Katniss finds herself as tribute, selflessly offering herself voluntarily so her little sister, who was the actual choice of cruel fate, is spared a violent certain death in the arena. The other District 12 tribute is Peeta Mellark (Josh Hutcherson of Journey 1 and 2 fame, apparently also a rising star in Hollywood but nowhere near as talented as Jennifer), a boy with a secret. Together with their mentor Haymitch (Woody Harrelson doing what he does best, playing someone out of his bloody mind), a former Hunger Games survivor who since has made a successful transition from celebrated champion to opportunist alcoholist, the pair travels to the Capitol.

And here the fun really begins. One of The Hunger Games' strongest assets is the set design and the simple but effective way it communicates the vast differences, both culturally and ideologically, between the Capitol and the Districts (or at least the 12^th District, since we sadly get to see next to nothing of the other Districts). While Katniss' world is lush and green, with lots of forests and actual wildlife, simple cottages for housing and populated by hardened, gritty coal miners, the Capitol is the exact opposite, a totally urban environment filled with big, ugly concrete buildings in the Italian Fascist style, technologically advanced with no remnants of nature of any kind, populated by people in the most excessively flamboyant attire and make-up imaginable. Especially this last piece of cultural establishment of the ruling part of the world raises some uncomfortable laughs from the audience, given the fact that the grotesque outfits of the Capitol citizens makes them look both pleasantly innocent and dangerously disturbing, amiable and sinister at the same time (Elizabeth Banks excels in showcasing this duality in the role of Effie Trinket, the Capitol liaison to the District 12 kids). The only one who doesn't seem to join in on the current Capitol fashion is the dictator Snow (a fittingly regal but somewhat maniacal Donald Sutherland), who rules both Panem and the Hunger Games event with an iron fist.

Katniss and Peeta, understandably overwhelmed by the grandeur and splendour of the Capitol, are welcomed by its population as would-be heroes or true star athletes, though everyone knows they'll soon be most likely quite deceased. What follows upon the tributes' arrival is a lenghty series of sequences around the tributes that are designed to let the audience, both the Capitol spectators and the viewers watching the film, get to know this latest batch of cannon fodder, all the while working up to the actual tournament and slowly but surely making the tension levels mount accordingly. So in a successfully satirical mockery of media power we watch Katniss and her rival competitors being dragged through a parade, interviews with television host Caesar Flickerman (performed with visible enthusiasm by Stanley Tucci) and training sessions in which we also learn some of the differences between the tributes' mentality. The kids from Districts 1 and 2 (which turn out to be the Districts most loyal to the Capitol, sucking up to it vigorously) all volunteered for the event and are really out for blood instead of mere survival. This is of course a simple plot ploy to establish a 'good kids' versus 'bad kids' routine, the virtuous Katniss and Peeta belonging to the former, and the likes of the psychopath Cato (bulked out Alexander Ludwig) and his entourage to the latter. Both in the interviews and the training, Katniss appears to be a most promising competitor, with her popularity in the Games only growing when Peeta publicly reveals to be in love with her. Question is: is he really, or is it an attempt to make his level of interest among the Hunger Games' audience rise for his own benefit?

And then the Games begin. Now the movie gets to make good on its promise of suspenseful life-or-death fighting. To hurry things up a little, a whole bunch of tributes is killed in the first few minutes of the show when all but Katniss run to acquire weapons made available to them. Katniss makes for cover first, using her knowledge of the forest – the shape the arena has conveniently taken – to survive and only kill when necessary. Alliances are soon formed, and much to Katniss' chagrin Peeta appears to have been forced to join Cato's merciless gang of cutthroats, who hunt down and pick off lone warriors one by one. Katniss herself teams up with the little District 11 girl Rue (charming young Amandla Stenberg), who of course gets murdered all too soon, after which she believably mourns her loss and disposes of her body with respect, the televized images of which start a rebellion in Rue's home District.

A District 12 tribute causing an uprising in District 11 raises some uncomfortable plot questions here: what is the point of giving the 12 Districts a common cause against the Capitol again, in the shape of this tournament? President Snow describes the Games as a symbol of hope for the Districts, but the only hope there seems to be is the rise of a martyr/savious who will rid the Districts of the Capitol, and I daresay that is not the message the dictator means to send to his subjects... The Hunger Games seem to be just simple amusement for the ruling city at the expense of their subjected territories, encouraging dissent among the latter which will ultimately overthrow the former. Also, why 24 subjects out of 12 Districts, thus making sure every District faces at least one loss, while the Capitol can set the Districts against each other by using one 12 victims, with one District triumphing over the other eleven. Given the status of District 1 and 2 as suck-ups to the Capitol, supplying the Hunger Games annually with trained killer kids that are said to almost always win the day, provides for a genuine opportunity to strengthen the differences between the Districts, so as to keep them hating each other instead of focusing to bring down the repressive regime together. 'Divide and conquer' tactics are apparently lost on this particular dystopian government, but not on the observant spectator trying to make sense out of the Hunger Games' purpose.

That said, as poorly conceived as the political situation around the Hunger Games may be, the film itself certainly succeeds in making the event worthwhile, by delivering some rather tense moments of suspense as the kids are after one another in full force. Katniss has to use her every skill to stay alive from her persecutors, and witnesses a decent amount of unfair slaughter in the process. Of course, the movie is rated PG-13, so the level of bloodshed is restrained to an appropriate minimum, courtesy of quick cutting away from the gorier moments or shaking the camera around vehemently to make sure we don't get to see in too much detail what we obviously know we would see otherwise. Eventually, Katniss regroups with Peeta, who's escaped from Cato's vile clutches, and the two share some intimate moments in a hidden cave, proving Peeta's love is true. Katniss more or less returns the favour, which makes the existence of a love triangle the likes of Twilight in this film official! Who will she choose, her actual boyfriend Gale waiting for her back home, or her buddy-in-arms helping her to stay alive? Fortunately, this movie has little to say about it otherwise (though the unavoidable sequel undoubtedly will), considering Katniss needs to survive first in order for her to be able to make an actual choice, and of course, so does Peeta, since Katniss isn't the necrophile type.

And this provides another plot point of contention, considering Katniss never has to actually make a choice. Warning, here be spoilers! Katniss and Peeta are the sole survivors after having fed Cato to a bunch of digital (both for real and in the Hunger Games' arena) mutant dog monsters. Now of course we come to the long awaited matter of: 'what will Katniss choose?' There can be only one survivor after all, but apparently the rule is: 'there must be one survivor'. And so Katniss comes up with a cop-out solution of her and Peeta eating poison berries, thus committing suicide together instead for one being forced to kill the other. This the Games do now permit, so both kids are allowed to live and return home alive, much to the dismay of President Snow who has his Gamemaster (Wes Bentley) commit suicide himself over this fiasco. So all's well that ends well, but the audience is robbed of seeing Katniss' choice between life and death, which feels like something the movie was working up to. Instead, we are treated to the prospect of an annoying love triangle for the next film. Yay...

So there you have it. The Hunger Games, overhyped as any such big event film designed first and foremost to the teenage market is, is not a bad film per se, but not wholly good either. Though it delivers solid action, up to par acting and offers a fairly delicious dystopian society, reminiscent to those good old post-apocalyptic flicks in the same style from the Seventies, it could have been better if the world of Panem had been flushed out a bit more, the Hunger Games themselves finetuned somewhat stronger, and if the plot hadn't stolen a satisfying emotional climax from us. The set-ups for a sequel or two are overtly present, and though there's a certain appeal to seeing more of Panem, there's also the strong dread it will only go downhill from here, turning into a teen dramafest. Whether that will be the case remains to be seen. I'm not exactly hungry for more, but if you offer me some tasty little portions more of this, I'm game.

And watch the trailer here:

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/lions_gate/thehungergames/