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.

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/

Journey 2: underwhelming in all but the third dimension

Rating: ***/*****, or 5/10

A few days ago I criticized the disappointing use of 3-D in Star Wars Episode I, which was re-released solely to cash in on the 3-D hype currently controlling Hollywood studio executives' minds (and their bank accounts), and to a lesser degree the minds of audiences around the globe. Being converted in 3-D over a decade after its initial release, the 3-D effects in Episode I were unfortunately far from compelling or convincing, though seeing the movie itself back on the big screen was a bit of a blast (if you like Star Wars in general, and can swallow the prequel trilogy specifically). Viewers flocking to theatres expecting to find the new 3-D addition to The Phantom Menace a worthwhile event will be disappointed, since there just seems to be little room for 3-D were it was never intended to be, often making you forget the 3-D is there to begin with. The opposite is also possible, as Journey 2: The Mysterious Island, released in theatres this week, makes perfectly clear.

Journey 2 is, as the title obviously suggests, a sequel, though the first movie wasn't simply called Journey. It was called Journey to the Center of the Earth, and it was released in 2008. You probably missed it, if you are aware of this particular incarnation of Jules Verne's classic adventure novel at all. It was one of the earlier entries into the current 3-D craze and hit theatres at a time when there were still few theatres with 3-D projectors around (oh, the good ol' days!). I myself was very much aware of it though because it featured a bunch of dinosaurs, and movies with such contents make me lose all objectivity. And apparently common sense as well, since I bothered to travel all the way to Almere to see it in a theatre there that was a few years ahead of its time, like Almere often thinks it is (if you don't know about this wretched city, Google or Wiki it, but be sure to eat lunch or dinner afterwards). The movie theatre in question – I will not mention its name – has got to be the ugliest, most depressing movie building I've ever visited: it kinda felt like an image out of an Orwellian dystopian future. I actually paid to see the movie full price, something I hadn't done in a while then because of my 50% student discount powers, and which I have never done since, in payment for my loyal, unquestionable service to the sinister Pathé company. But despite these trials, my dubious perseverance was awarded with a delightful viewing experience: I saw massive caves, subterranean oceans, stunning blonde Anita Briem, flying piranhas, Trilobites and of course the much coveted dinosaurs, all in spectacular 3-D! For a short while, this movie made me a believer in 3-D. And then it got milked... and milked... with often such hugely dismaying results that I lost my interest in 3-D and the mere notion of a movie I anticipated being released in 3-D made me cringe and sigh out loud.

And on the topic of milking, we're back to Journey 2 3-D. Apparently, Journey 1 (I'm lazy enough to use this abbreviated title, even though I claimed above there is no movie with this nomenclature) made some money despite its limit release (limited since it was only released in 3-D instead of a regular 2-D version also being in circulation, as is usual now). And therefore, Hollywood Law states a sequel or some other follow-up must be produced by any means necessary. And now we have the result.

Guess what? Whatever shortcomings this sequel has (and there are many many many of those), in regards to 3-D effects, it's one of the best films I've seen in the last few years! Apparently the powers-that-be behind this franchise were aware of the 3-D history behind the first film, and honoured it by making sure the second film would surpass it on this front. So again we get a fast paced adventure flick filled to the brim with nifty, neat-o 3-D effects, ranging from the generic 'in-your-face' type to the excellent use of it in backgrounds and tracking shots, showcasing what you can do with 3-D and how few other movies make full use of its potential. Some of the most memorable set-ups include a zoom shot over the lost city of Atlantis, with the camera flying past a huge statue's trident, a giant electric moray eel swimming in a circle so closeby you feel like reaching out and touching it, a harpoon being thrown right into our eyes and The Rock getting berries thrown at his nipples, which bounce back in every direction (the berries, not the nipples). I had the good fortune of seeing this in an IMAX theatre, and I felt completely immersed into the movie, an effect 3-D hasn't had on me in a long time. This movie made 3-D feel like the event that audiences hope for it to be, instead of just a lame addition installed to justify higher admission prices. The 3-D alone makes this movie work, which is a rare happenstance, despite 3-D movies being so plentiful nowadays. It seems once again a 2-D version is nowhere to be found, which should be the case considering if you take away the 3-D, little of interest remains...

Despite the fantastic use of 3-D and a good overall sense of adventure, this movie just has nothing else going for it. The story is bare boned and predictable at every turn (not that there are many turns anyway): Josh Hutcherson (the only remaining element from Journey 1 aside from the Verne references) is being a spoiled brat who wants to go off and find some island because his grandfather sent him morse code messages on how to find it, and his stepfather (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, who replaces Brendan Fraser as the heroic lead) awards his misbehavior by taking him to said island in the hopes of creating a bond between them. In Palau they charter a rusty old helicopter and its pilot, Luiz Gusman in a stereotypical JarJarist comic relief role (i.e. supposed to be funny, but failing miserably) to fly them to their location, and as a bonus they get Vanessa Hudgens along for the ride as eye candy. Of course they quickly find the island, which Verne, plus various other authors randomly thrown in, alluded to in his novel Mysterious Island. As happened in the previous film, the works of Verne are used as guides to the protagonists in their quest to stay alive, as if the places Verne described actually existed (think Scientology's take on L. Ron Hubbard's books, except with a better author being used and less religious nonsense mixed in). Naturally the group ends up stranded there and has to run from one threat to the other to stay in one piece, a confrontation with a giant frilled lizard providing the most memorable action scene. The grandfather (Michael Caine, apparently once again in dire need of cash, otherwise he would have turned this sucker down) is found alive and well and takes them on a tour across a number of digital set pieces, including Atlantis, giant bees and a volcano spewing gold. The island of course is too good to be true, and turns out to be swiftly sinking, so our heroes have to get off by finding Captain Nemo's hidden submarine, which they do, after which they get home safely and all's well that ends well.

Worn out subplots concerning Josh Hutcherson's grandfather never really caring about him and The Rock wanting to be accepted as a father figure by his stepson provide the only real opportunities for the audience to bond with these characters as it sets out on this voyage with them, but ultimately viewers won't care less about them and just want to see them get into one fantastic situation after another, which is of course what they get. Say what you will about Journey 2, but at least it doesn't pretend to be anything other than the most basic adventure extravaganza with copious amounts of action and excitement.

Character development, plot twists and deep themes are of course lacking because they are not needed to thrill audiences for 90 minutes. Unfortunately the abundance of lousy jokes, many of them imvolving poop and assorted viscous, oozy materials, were apparently considered a necessity, but most of them (especially the ones provided by Gusman) are just not funny. In fact, given The Rock's known comedic talent (which he applies well in this film, the high point being the aforementioned berry throwing scene), Gusman's character might as well have been omitted entirely. Vanessa Hudgens looks gorgeous (again, good use of 3-D) but her relationship with Josh Hutcherson follows the cliche ridden path from nuisance to acceptance to romance, while chemistry between them is low. There's more chemistry between The Rock and the various creatures he has to fight in order to get his friends to survive the day, and of course, it's these creatures that stand out the most. Tiny elephants, giant birds, bees and lizards and a moray eel endowed with exceptionally high voltage give the cast a run for their money, but win the day in staying in our memories of this movie. In Verne's novel, such animals were of course absent, which means the producers were heavily inspired by Ray Harryhausen's take on this story, which ended up in his fabulous Mysterious Island in 1961, showcasing some of his brilliant stop motion photography that still awes audiences today. It's unlikely Journey 2's creatures will survive in cultural memory as well as their predecessors, but for now, they do their job.

Suffice to say, the carefully crafted but sensational use of 3-D is this movie's only truly redeeming feature while all else is quite forgetful. When the movie is over and the lights go on again, you've had the 3-D ride of your life, but the movie itself won't stay with you for more than a few days at best. Whereas Episode I results in audiences asking themselves 'Was I watching this movie in 3-D?'. Journey 2 will have them asking 'Was I watching this 3-D in a movie?'. However, given Journey 1's limited release and the fact a Journey 2 was made regardless, the wide release of the latter will undoubtedly spawn a Journey 3. The producers took this into account and made sure there's enough not quite so subtle hints as to Josh Hutcherson's next destination. And as long as the 3-D effects stay on their current level of excellence, we won't mind taking that trip to the moon with him in a few years...