The Hunger Games

Young Adult literature has come a long way in the past few years, with some of the most popular books and movies falling within that genre's boundaries.  I don't consider myself a YA fan (although I did enjoy Harry Potter), but it's hard to ignore the success and rabid fan base for some of these franchises.  When The Hunger Games was announced, I have to admit that I wasn't particularly excited.  My knowledge of the series came primarily from my youngest cousin, who also enjoys Twilight to a disturbing degree.  Still, the dearth of other interesting movies in theaters, combined with its impressive opening weekend box office numbers piqued my interest in catching The Hunger Games.

I'm so happy that I'm not the only person who immediately thought of this

Katniss (Jennifer Lawrence) is a teenager living in District 12, which appears to consist of what was once Appalachia.  Thankfully, there isn't any meth in this future, but the region is still dirt poor, with the inhabitants scraping just to survive.  While the setting doesn't look futuristic (yet), you do catch a glimpse of a flying car.  That's not the only innovation in this future; taking a hint from Shirley Jackson's The Lottery, the kids of this futuristic super-state participate in the Hunger Games.  Every year, a boy and a girl (ages 12-18) are randomly chosen  to represent each district (hint: there are twelve) as Tributes in a fight to the death, which serves as televised entertainment for the masses.  You get entered in the lottery in a variety of ways, whether once for every year you are eligible, or your family can opt to enter your name in multiple times to receive more food or other necessities.  Thanks, Mom.  When Katniss' sister is selected as Tribute in her first year of eligibility, Katniss volunteers to take her place.  Why?  Well, Katniss is basically a bad-ass; she is an ace archer, she's obviously strong, is emotionally tough, and already cares for her sister like she would a daughter.  Of course she volunteers to save her sister's life.  Just as obviously, this wouldn't appeal to the YA fans if it was just about teens murdering teens.  No, the cards are beyond stacked against Katniss.  For starters, there are other Tributes who spend their lives training for the Games, who have grown up learning how to kill and how to survive. 

The first lesson is to look extremely smug

And it's not like this battle royale is taking place in a stadium; they are inserted into an environment that is a hostile and rugged wilderness.  Well, maybe not a wilderness.  Actually, it's a huge structure that takes the shape of whatever the evil Gamesmakers choose; it looks like an ordinary forest, but if the Gamesmakers get bored, they can add horrifying predators or natural disasters to the mix and spice things up.  Oh, and there is the added challenge of being likable while going through this terrifying ordeal.  Sometimes, when a Tribute gets popular enough with the home viewers, but finds him/herself in a bind, the viewers can choose to sponsor that contestant and send them a little help (food, medicine, etc.).  Katniss the tough girl isn't a natural pick for the country's little darling.  Add a little teenage romance to all that, and you've got The Hunger Games in a nutshell.

The first thing you will probably notice about The Hunger Games is how familiar it is.  The most obvious parallels are The Lottery and Battle Royale, but the basics of this story have popped up in a variety of films before.  The reality television angle has been covered in The Truman Show, the battle to the death has come up in a number of movies (Death Race 2000 is a personal favorite), the invasive government is similar to so many post-apocalyptic futures (1984, V For Vendetta, etc.), and the whole kids-killing-kids theme has obviously been popularized in Lord of the Flies.  Hell, even movies you wouldn't immediately compare to a dystopian science fiction tale have some surprising parallels; Jennifer Lawrence first gained acclaim for her work in Winter's Bone, where she played poor white trash in Appalachia that is strong, determined, takes care of her siblings, has a worthless mother, hunts to supplement the family income, and puts herself in harm's way to protect her family.  Sound familiar? 

Some scenes are even reminiscent of Breakin' 2: Electric Boogaloo

Luckily, the story is told in a way that doesn't force those realizations on you immediately (or, at least you don't really mind when you figure them out).  Director Gary Ross does an admirable job respecting the audience's intelligence throughout this film.  So many other directors would have gone out of their way to explain some of the concepts in The Hunger Games, but Ross often chooses the subtle approach.  Sure, he could have characters in District 12 mutter about how posh and spoiled the people in the capital are, but he simply opts to let their appearances speak for them.

This look suggests "jackass"

Ross also refuses to give much background to the story.  A history of the Games is not given.  The meanings of certain gestures are learned only through context.  Many plot details are handled in a similar fashion.  I have to admit that I really, really appreciated that.  I hate when science fiction films go out of their way to showcase how awesome/ridiculous their technology is (I'm looking at you, Aeon Flux).  The Hunger Games tells an interesting (if familiar) story within a fully-realized sci-fi world, a la Blade Runner.  I wouldn't say that Ross had excellent cinematography or any spectacular artiness on display here, but I thought he did a good job making a story-driven film that was accessible to casual viewers but had enough details to please hardcore fans.

Except, of course, for the racist ones

The acting in The Hunger Games was pretty solid.  Jennifer Lawrence again plays a strong heroine, and she once again impresses.  There are so few good, strong female roles in Hollywood, it is nice to see someone play such a role convincingly.  Katniss is definitely the main character in this story, but the leading supporting cast member, Peeta, was played ably by Josh Hutcherson.  Yes, he's kind of a weenie, but that appears to be how the character was meant to be played.  The next most noteworthy cast member was definitely Woody Harrelson; he went from uncaring drunk to able mentor a little too easily for my liking, but Harrelson is a welcome addition to just about any cast.  Elizabeth Banks was almost unrecognizable as Effie, wearing a nightmarish makeup blend that seemed to mix a poodle with cotton candy.

Good idea.  Put the mic close to capture the sound of mouth breathing

The other Tributes didn't really impress me much.  Out of the other twenty-two contestants, I recognized Alexander Ludwig and was mildly impressed with his choice to play a villain; I was a little creeped out by Isabelle Fuhrman; and I thought Amandla Stenberg was adorable.  Oh, and the son of Meg Ryan and Dennis Quaid, Jack Quaid, makes his debut here, but he doesn't say or do much.  There are a number of smaller parts played by recognizable actors in this film, as well.  Donald Sutherland plays the evil Big Brother analogue with tired competence.  Toby Jones appears to be in a Phil Spector lookalike competition.

Stanley Tucci looked just as ridiculous as an overbearing television personality.  This film also marks a few milestones for certain actors.  Lenny Kravitz was surprisingly good in his small role; I was expecting Gavin Rossdale-level crappiness from Kravitz, but he was actually quite likable.  I was also happy to see Wes Bentley in a movie; ever since American Beauty, I have been hoping for him to do something cool.  This isn't it, but it's a solid supporting role that will hopefully lead to that movie I dreamed up where he and Christopher Walken play father-son psychopaths.

P.S.: Fantastic beard.  That is Wooly Willy good

So, the question remains: is this a movie for you?  Well, I can't imagine anyone who would absolutely hate The Hunger Games.  That's not necessarily an endorsement, I know, but this is an entertaining movie.  The familiarity of the concept made it feel a little long to me, but I wasn't bored.  As much as I liked Jennifer Lawrence, I wish she had shown a little more range; she had the same wide-eyed look of surprise in a number of scenes, and she always seemed to convey nervousness by leaving her mouth open.

Given that the target demographic for this film is teenagers, and since all teenagers (even former ones) are by definition complete idiots, I thought The Hunger Games turned out surprisingly well.   It's pretty dark, the romance angle is fairly subtle, and it was well-directed.  Personally, I wouldn't put it on par with the joyous fantasy of a Harry Potter movie, but it is definitely leaps and bounds above Twilight.  It didn't blow me away, but there is no denying that this is a solid film that can appeal to just about everyone.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer

Every so often, I watch a movie that reminds me of the decade in which I came of age: the 90s.  While not as sleazy as the 70s, and not as absolutely stupid as the 80s, American pop culture in the 90s was still fairly ridiculous.  I don't often watch movies that are defined by their decade, but I made an exception for Buffy the Vampire Slayer.

"Ridiculous"how?  Two words: Butterfly Vagina

Before I continue, I have to admit that I am a fan of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer television show.  I'm not much of a TV fan, but I have been sucked into that teen melodrama and found it surprisingly entertaining.  I am not going to compare the two, though; I believe that serial storytelling is vastly different than filmmaking.  I just want to acknowledge ahead of time that I might have a soft spot in my heart for Joss Whedon, who created the TV show and wrote the screenplay to the film.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is the story of (not surprisingly) Buffy (Kristy Swanson), your average, run-of-the-mill Valley Girl stereotype, circa-1992.  Basically, she cares about fashion, shopping, boys, and using "like" at least three times in every sentence.  Like, gag me with a cliche.  Buffy's life would be normal, if not for the intervention of Merrick (a slumming --- even by his low standards --- Donald Sutherland).

Sutherland, contemplating seppuku

Merrick finds and trains the Chosen One in each generation (he's old) to battle the vampire master, Lothos (Rutger Hauer).  The Chosen One is always a teenage girl, and she always loses to Lothos; this time, it's Buffy's turn.  On a side note, though, Merrick has a worse losing record than my beloved Chicago Cubs; if this were professional sports, he would have been fired at least a hundred years ago.  Anyway, in a bit of plot convenience, Lothos likes to treat his only viable opposition as sport, so he and his vampire minions set up shop in Buffy's hometown of Los Angeles.  Can Buffy defeat the dastardly vampire leader?  What effect will Merrick have on this Valley Girl?  What the hell is an Oscar winner doing in this movie?  All this, and more, can be answered by watching this movie. 

But who would want to do that?  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is not, by any imaginable definition, a good movie.  You can blame many people for that, but I think the first targets should be the actors.  Kristy Swanson is, quite simply, not much of an actress.  Unfortunately, her character goes through a pretty typical story arc, so her performance seems even more bland and predictable than usual.  Donald Sutherland is pretty decent as a creepy old man, but he does make me wonder exactly what his acting standards are; does he look for choice roles, decent money, or just someone who will offer to buy him Funyuns?  Rutger Hauer had swelled to his current size by this point, so he wasn't as physically intimidating as Blade Runner-era Rutger would have been.  Hauer is only a little subpar in this role, primarily because his character is stupid (he deliberately allows his enemy to get stronger) and his costumes and makeup were occasionally laughably bad. 

Smirkingly bad, at the very least

Surprisingly, the supporting cast is pretty solid.  Luke Perry played Buffy's love interest, and he managed to have some reasonable reactions --- when weird stuff starts happening, he tries to leave town --- as well as some of the better lines in the movie.  David Arquette has a small role, but the banter between him and Perry was one of the better aspects of the film.  Paul Reubens doesn't make for a very fearsome vampire, but his comic timing provides some of the movie's best jokes, particularly with his death scene.  You might also recognize Stephen Root and Hilary Swank in fairly boring character roles, as well as Ben Affleck, Ricki Lake, and Thomas Jane in bit parts.  None of them are particularly interesting to watch here, but it can be fun to spot them before they were famous.

Vampire or extra from Wayne's World?

This is the only feature film directed by Fran Rubel Kuzui and I think I know why.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is a story that, probably, shouldn't work.  The premise alone guarantees a fairly cheesy movie experience.  Kuzui doesn't go much further with the idea than that; in fact, I believe that the Wisconsin-ish levels of cheesiness present in the movie are due to Kuzui making lazy choices and settling for stereotypes and easy jokes.

Thankfully, no stakes-for-dildos jokes

I suppose you can blame a lot of that on Joss Whedon's script, too.  This is an odd script, though; while there are a lot of lame jokes and gags, there are also a few genuinely funny and clever moments.  For every Valley Girl-ism, there's a line like, "He ruined my new jacket...!  Kill him a lot."  I hesitate to say that the filmmakers butchered his script, but...this screenplay draft is a lot cooler than what ended up on-screen.

For example, Luke Perry's friend didn't look or sound like an Arquette

That's not to say that the movie is awful...it's just not very good.  There are some clever lines and it managed to blend comedy and horror together --- unfortunately, it was neither scary or funny enough to truly work.  Still, it's kind of cute for what it is: a stupid comedy-horror hybrid.

The Mechanic (2011)

Being a dumb action movie star is a double-edged sword.  Sure, you're pretty much guaranteed to have one scene with a topless actress per film and the Spike network will probably run your films in three movie blocks on weekends, but the fun doesn't go on forever.  Just ask Steven Seagal, Jean-Claude Van Damme, or even Sylvester Stallone or Arnold Schwarzenegger.  By including Statham in his over-the-hill action star vehicle The Expendables, Stallone seemed to pass the torch onto this generation's only career dumb action hero, but is that a good thing?

This could be a scene from any Jason Statham movie.

The Mechanic is a remake of the 1972 Charles Bronson movie of the same name.  Remaking a Bronson film actually isn't a bad idea; it's not like anyone is going to have their acting compare unfavorably to him.  Anyway, Arthur Bishop (Jason Statham) is an assassin-for-hire.  He's not an ordinary assassin, though.  He's so good at his job that he can make death look like an accident, or he can implicate a specific person in a murder, or he can make a hell of a lot of things go boom --- it just depends on what the job calls for.  His handler and mentor, Harry (Donald Sutherland), is his next target.  Bishop doesn't want to kill his (basically only) friend, but his boss, Dean (Tony Goldwyn), gives him some files and information that are quite damning.  Does Bishop kill Harry?  That's actually not very important or, surprisingly, very interesting.  What is important is that Harry dies and his son, Steve (Ben Foster), wants Bishop to teach him how to be a Statham-level assassin.

Step one: walk slowly away from explosions.

I don't think anyone is going to be surprised by the acting in this movie.  Jason Statham is, as always, a scowling bad-ass.  He still has his accent, and he undresses with little provocation.  He's a little less convincing as the guy who thinks six moves ahead in this movie, but whatever.  I have no real complaints about his work.  Ben Foster, on the other hand, has been better.  I usually enjoy Foster, but he doesn't really add anything to the movie, aside from receiving a reasonably realistic beat-down.  Donald Sutherland is in the movie for about five minutes, and he stopped challenging himself years ago, so he's fine.  Perennial bad guy Tony Goldwyn is, not surprisingly, unsympathetic.  Both men fill their roles adequately, but neither is particularly memorable.  And, for fans of gratuitous nudity, Swedish model Mini Anden is very convincing as she shows off her dislike of clothing.

Director Simon West is not known for introspective think pieces --- he directed Con Air, ferchrissakes --- so you pretty much know what you're getting when his name appears on the credits.  There are some pretty sweet murders in this movie, and it has some solid action sequences, but I felt the pace in this movie was all wrong.  I wasn't expecting a Jason Statham/Simon West collaboration to have fancy camera angles or interesting characters, but I was hoping to be consistently entertained.  The problem isn't with the story, which requires Bishop to train Steve.  The problem is that the movie drags between assassination jobs.  Go figure, movie that focuses on action isn't as good at dialogue, right?  While that's certainly true, I just didn't have fun watching this movie; the script was deadly serious and the filmmakers didn't have any fun with some of the more ridiculous moments in the movie.  When you add that to the characterization of Steve as a complete idiot in life-or-death situations, you get an annoying action movie.

They're probably hiding from critics.

I went into this with pretty reasonable expectations, I think.  I was hoping for an awesome action movie, or at least for something dumb and fun.  I got an action movie that was dumb and serious.  Not the most satisfying mix.  I actually consider myself somewhat of a Statham fan, but if he keeps making movies like this, we're going to start seeing him on the direct-to-DVD market with his dumb action forebearers soon.