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: zombies, terminators and mockingjays

A short summary of recent news by my hand follows. As usual.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156816/pride_and_prejudice_and_zombies_leeft_weer

Glad to see this offbeat project in the land of the living (dead) once more. We could use more weird movies like these. The premise is overly simple: take a classic piece of literature and spice things up with a rather unusual element few people would commonly associate with it, and you got yourself a movie with an intriguing title that begs a visit in theaters to see what exactly must be made of this. Worked well enough with Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, by the same author, which proved a rollercoaster thrill ride of an action flick that actually connected the history with the horror in a fashion that made sense from a narrative viewpoint - i.e., vampires controlling the Southern slave trade to guarantee an unlimited amount of human blood while keeping the human economy rolling - but didn't pretend to be anything but utter fiction. Pride and Prejudice and Zombies seems determined to repeat that notion in very much the same way, perhaps carrying the risk of feeling repetitive. Nor does the title alliterate as delightfully as its own follow-up Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters. However, I say go for it, and so does the creative team behind it, including producer Natalie Portman, who wouldn't give up on it. So far the casting seems to be doing well, especially if they do manage to acquire Jack Huston for a part. With his particular character from Boardwalk Empire on his repertoire, a deteriorated undead look is right up his alley.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156838/schwarzenegger_onthult_titel_nieuwe_terminator

Strange title. I assume the deliberate misspelling refers to a plot point which has yet to be revealed, so I won't bitch and moan about that until I can either confirm or disprove that assumption for myself, even though I am a bit of a grammar nazi. It's not a title funky enough to get me geared up for this film though. The cast does a better job at that. I can't get over the irony that Sarah and John Connor are being played by Emilia and Jason Clarke respectively, while there is no direct relationship between them. I also appreciate the trick of fate that Emilia is now playing Sarah Connor, while her Game of Thrones co-star Lena Headey assumed that mantle before on the unfortunately short lived TV show Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles. I'm quite pleased with this assembled cast overall, except for Schwarzenegger. Personally I felt Terminator Salvation was a breath of fresh air because it shied away from using him, making it feel different and less predictable than its predecessors, which started to feel repetitive. Same goes for the aforementioned TV show, which also established convincing Terminators can be played by a diverse range of actors of various shapes, sizes, races, ages and creeds. Schwarzenegger in my mind is the cliché the franchise would do well to avoid. However, considering the series' cancellation and Salvation's lackluster worldwide box office takes, public opinion might be against me in this matter. I guess most people just want to see the Austrian Oak kick ass in their Terminator films, despite the much wider story possibilities available.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/156834/nieuwe_posters_the_hunger_games_mockingjay

Mockingjay's marketing strategy seems to follow Catching Fire's closely. The routine of a logo poster first, character posters second, is strictly sustained for this second sequel to The Hunger Games. No doubt a 'Katniss on fire in logo' poster will follow soon. This time, there's more than a trio of character posters though. So far, six different one-sheets have been unearthed in the viral marketing campaign, and more are likely to follow. I guess there's just much more characters, and much more fine actors portraying them, to go around this time. I reckon the studio wants to capitalize on the loss of Philip Seymour Hoffman by attributing a poster of his own to his character: dead actors mean public interest in their final movies after all, like it or not. Simultaneously, if you hooked a great and well respected actress for a part you want to convey that in your promotional campaign too, and so Julianne Moore also gets her own poster, which makes for the debut of her character in the public mind. Interestingly enough, so far all of these character posters seem to revolve around supporting characters, while the movie's main trio - the subject of Catching Fire's comparable character one-sheets - is nowhere in sight as of yet. Considering how much the teenage demographic loves - or how much the studio execs think it loves - the love triangle that is going on between Katniss, Peeta and Gale, I bet their place in the spotlight is simply reserved for later. So these character posters showcasing much of the fine supporting cast are basically a treat to people who love movies and good acting, while the franchise's fanbase with its various Team Gales and Team Peetas will no doubt soon get to drool over posters depicting their young heroes. By which I don't mean to imply Jennifer Lawrence can't act. I meant to imply Josh Hutcherson's and especially Liam Hemsworth's acting capabilities leave a lot to be desired. So now I might need to prepare myself from vicious attacks by Hunger Games fangirls. Thankfully I happen to know few of those read this blog of mine.

Today's Triple News: the vice of mocking Triffids

This is what you get if you don't get around to posting your own news for a few days: it just piles up:

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153308/potter_regisseur_maakt_remake_triffids

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153285/eerste_poster_hunger_games_mockingjay_part_1

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/153241/bruce_willis_speelt_hoofdrol_in_sci-fi_thriller_vice

All fairly predictable news really. The Day of the Triffids is not specifically a commonly known science fiction movie, but has a certain cult following that assured more would be done with the property in the future than to stick to lousy miniseries on TV. It was a given the first Mockingjay poster would continue the trend in showing the bird logo in an altered fashion not so subtly parallelling Katniss Everdeen's rise to rebellion. As for Vice, that is probably the most surprising bit of news, in two ways. First, it's basically a Westworld copy ('synthetic staff of holiday resort abused by visitors strike back in a rage of vengeance' sounds suspiciously familiar, does it not?). Second, Bruce Willis supposedly plays a bad guy (it sure sounds that way judging by the film's plot synopsis), which doesn't happen every day. I'm not saying it's a first; e.g. Planet Terror or Perfect Stranger for example. But Hollywood movie stars of his stature have a tendency to stick to playing the formulaic role of an heroic character, as that's what their agents and studio execs expect the audience wants to see them play. Why change a winning routine that keeps bringing in the big bucks after all? Maybe because these stars themselves get bored doing the same thing over and over again? A change of pace also helps them gain respect as true actors (which some of them really aren't) as they get a chance to reveal their versatility by playing a type of character they usually avoid. I know Willis is talented enough to play a convincingly brutal villain, so that's not what's wrong with Vice in my mind. I just don't care much for an uninspired story like this. Again, judging solely by the synopsis (as nothing else is available yet), which seems clear enough. Especially when there's a Westworld TV series in the making at HBO, which assuredly promises us every vice this movie could come up with, and more.

As for the Triffids remake, it had to happen sooner or later, and the powers-that-be opted for sooner. The last adaptation, a dreadful miniseries of ill repute, debuted less than five years ago, so the name (which doesn't seem mistakable for anything else), may still be fresh on some people's minds, but likely not for the better. So undo the damage done by throwing another adaptation our way, overseen by a notable talent. Newell surely is talented enough, having earned his reputation with a diverse range of movies including Four Weddings and a Funeral, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Donnie Brasco and of course his most famous (and undoubtedly most lucrative) film, Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. Carnivorous extraterrestrial plants seem like something he could handle between breakfast and tea easily enough. Still, as is the case with Vice, there's a danger of thematic repetition here. Day of the Triffids already sounds similar to the better know Invasion of the Body Snatchers in terms of story (already remade a few year back, also pretty dismal). What's  more, the Triffids themselves are largely incidental, as the story is more about human intereaction in times of major crises, specifically man's ability to work together in (a lack of) harmony when society collapses. This theme, though still one that has the power to attract viewers easily, has been done a bazillion times already by now. In this regard, there's actually little narrative difference between Day of the Triffids and, say, The Walking Dead, except the latter already has succeeded in getting the audience's attention and respect as a serious (well, mostly) piece of audiovisual entertainment. A zombie Apocalypse is one thing, but the whole notion of an invasion by man devouring vegetables generally sounds ludicrous to most people, so if Newell wants his audience to take it seriously - which decidedly was the intention of the original novel at the least - he'll have to work hard to make us get over our initial negative expectations that would work against the film's favour. Thankfully he has also done Great Expectations, that might help.

As for expectations and thematic repetition (segue!), there's the new Hunger Games poster. This was one bit of repetition most people expected. As such, it's far from original, but given the rise of quality in the movies in question, no less welcome to inflame our hopes for an even more compelling finale (despite being cut in half to allow the studio to scrape every bit of milk out of Jennifer Lawrence's teats, pardon my expression). The movie isn't very subtle in terms of symbolism, and it's easy to deduce the shit has now hit the fan from comparing this poster to its predecessors, which showed a more obsequious jay, despite the constant appearance of flames indicating there's a lot of bottled-up anger involved. This time the repression has failed to keep the rage at bay and the mockingjay is finally spreading its wings in aggressive pride, its head held high as a symbol of defiance. It makes for a striking image, nevermind the little variation as opposed to earlier promotional artwork. Considering the number of different posters released for Catching Fire, I'm sure more inspired artwork will follow soon. This is only a tease after all. Plus, as the same piece of imagery concluded the second movie it isn't even wholly novel stuff to begin with. As such, you could also consider it a cheat. However, it certainly will succeed in drawing attention in theaters (probably just because it looks so familiar, causing an instant shock of recognition from "hungry" fans), and as such it's certainly a successful piece of work. The fact it saves money in terms of design costs is just a bonus for the studio, and a welcome one no doubt, as it's a given Mockingjay Parts 1 and 2 will cost a fair amount of cash to produce. Not the least of which will go to Jennifer Lawrence's bank account, as a raise in salary seems inevitable for such a "hot" (pun? You decide!) actress people can't seem to get enough of.