The Hunger Games: Mockingjay - Part 1 is the third film in the dystopian young adult franchise about archer extraordinaire Katniss Everdeen. Mockingjay is the final book in the trilogy, and in true young adult adaptation spirit, it’s being split into two parts. Unfortunately, not enough happens in the book to truly warrant a second movie, and there’s no clear place to end the film, so the movie ends up feeling a lot like an overly-long episode of a TV show. The fact that this film isn’t self-contained really harms the impact and sustainability it has on the audience. At the end of the day, the film never really leads up to anything, and ends up feeling like just a waste of time.
The story continues directly where Catching Fire ended, with Katniss recovering after destroying the 75th annual Hunger Games. It is decided that she will be the “Mockingjay” for the rebellion, meaning that she will be the symbol to spur morale amongst the rebelling districts. There is also a lot of relationship drama in the film, as Gale is comforting Katniss and has to deal with the fact that Katniss is interested in Peeta, who is in the hands of the Capital.
Other than this, nothing really happens in the film. You could take out any scene of this film and it would be essentially the same movie. The same points are repeated over and over for the sake of extending the run-time, if nothing else. The attempts at humor are cringe-worthy, and there’s an incredibly uncomfortable portion of the film with Jennifer Lawrence singing a capella. There’s not really any significant character development in the film either. The character archetypes that are established early on in this film or previous films are hardly expanded on. The film just feels like it’s meandering around.
Here’s the thing. The whole point that the previous books/films have been trying to make is that these “Hunger Games” are absolutely atrocious and we should be ashamed if we’re intrigued by them. The problem with this is that the games have been so tame (due to the necessary PG-13 ratings) that we’re not shown the brutality of the situation, and we’re just left fantasizing about what we would do if we were in this situation. This is especially a problem because the games become the only interesting things the story has to offer. Without the games in this movie, all we’re left with is bad political commentary. People who say they watch The Hunger Games for the political commentary are lying, because all the movies essentially have to say is “Corruption bad. Equality good.”
On a production level, Mockingjay - Part 1 is competent enough. The performances are okay and special effects are done well enough, but there’s no sense of satisfaction in the film. When the movie ends, it doesn’t feel like you just finished a movie, it just feels like there are credits midway through the film and then the film stops. The payoff is in the next movie, and that makes this movie forgettable at best, a time-waster at worst. 4/10.
Between Heaven is Real and God’s Not Dead, this year has been a big year for Christian movies. Kirk Cameron’s Saving Christmas is one of such films, though it pains me to call it an actual movie. Clocking in at 80 minutes, the film has enough material to comfortably fill up 15. The movie opens with Kirk Cameron drinking imaginary cocoa and talking to the camera about how much he likes Christmas. After that enthralling introduction, the majority of the film takes place in a car as Kirk Cameron talks about how the materialism of Christmas is actually a Christian thing. That’s the whole movie. It’s padded out with awful attempts at humor, so much slow-motion that Zack Snyder would cringe, and a barely choreographed musical number at the end of the film. The credits are even stretched out with the inclusion of the least interesting outtakes imaginable.
Now, I know what you’re thinking: Does Kirk Cameron save Christmas? Definitely. He deflects logic with so much skill and precision that it’s honestly astounding. The stretches that are taken to prove his points are almost as long as this movie feels. When defending against the argument that the Christmas tree is a Pagan symbol, Cameron begins with, “Well, when God made the earth, he made all of the trees...”
This movie is truly special. It is entirely incompetent of any dramatic structure and lacks any sense of self-awareness. This is likely the worst movie I’ve ever seen, and definitely the worst movie I’ve seen that has gotten a theatrical release. This isn’t a B-movie, it’s not even a z-movie. This should have never seen the light of day. 0/10.
Although Michael Keaton claims that "In terms of parallels, I've never identified less with a character than with Riggan", there are some obvious comparisons between Michael Keaton and Riggan Thomson, Keaton's character in Birdman. Riggan is a Hollywood actor whose career seems to have peaked with three "Birdman" comic book movies, similar to Keaton being remembered for his Batman movies. Trying to achieve artistic validation, he is adapting, directing, and starring in a Broadway show based off of the Raymond Carver short story "What We Talk About When We Talk About Love". When one of the actors is injured during a run-through, he is replaced by Broadway superstar Mike Shiner (Edward Norton - no stranger to the superhero genre with 2008's The Incredible Hulk). Directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu, the story takes us through the play's troubled production, previews, and opening night.
One of the more novel aspects of the film is that it was filmed in such a way where a majority of the film appears to unfold in one continuous shot. This idea allows for the film to move continuously through the story, which creates an incredibly immersive experience. This is executed remarkably well, with the cuts only becoming apparent if you're looking for them and have a reasonable amount of production knowledge. Not only this, but unlike many other films that have attempted this concept, Birdman utilizes its full potential by shooting on multiple locations. Somehow, the cinematography manages to be gorgeous the whole way through. This is insanely impressive. Making a movie like this, there is very little room for error, and Birdman makes no mistakes.
The performances here are some of the best of the year. Michael Keaton not only plays Riggan, but also plays a physical and metaphorical embodiment of Birdman, who taunts Riggan constantly throughout the film. Keaton holds the film together in a way that not many actors would be able to do, creating a character so three-dimensional that it’s almost as if he isn’t acting. Mike Shiner makes things difficult for his co-stars in the play due to his complete devotion to method, an interesting parallel considering Edward Norton is often cited as being hard to work with. Norton creates a magical blend of annoying charisma in the film, and is absolutely captivating every frame he’s on screen. Emma Stone (who is a part of the recent Spider-man reboot) plays Riggan’s daughter and a recovering drug addict, and demonstrates some fantastic range she has yet to show in her career. Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, and Andrea Riseborough round out the supporting cast, each being given proper time to create fully-developed characters.
Another unique facet of this film is that the entire score is performed on a drum set. This creates a sort of frenetic energy that ensures the film maintains a fast pace and allows Keaton’s character to seem all the more desperate. It also enhances the surrealistic atmosphere that is present throughout the rest of the film. The film likes to toy with your perception as an audience member by showing you fantastical events and then bringing things rapidly back to reality, allowing you to establish what really happened. The movie ends on one of these surreal notes that lets you figure out for yourself what exactly happened. While some people may have been turned off by the small and large surrealistic elements of the film, I thought that it added another fascinating layer to the story that will likely allow for numerous viewings.
On a personal level, I really enjoyed the themes that were explored with this film. I really appreciated the exploration about the idea of what makes art valid, and I really liked the commentary that the film provided on art criticism. Birdman also talks a lot about the state of the superhero genre, and that’s a topic that I have a lot of interest in. I loved everything about this film. I haven’t seen a film so masterfully crafted and unique in a very long time. It’s an instant classic. 10/10.
There’s been a lot of hype surrounding Interstellar - Christopher Nolan’s new film. In fact, there’s a lot of hype around Christopher Nolan himself; he has a small, devoted fanbase that treat him like a god. On imdb’s “Top 250” list (based off of user ratings for the films), he has 6 films in the top 60. At the time of writing this, Interstellar is already at #11. This goes to prove two things: One, that the imdb rating scale is fundamentally flawed. And two, that people are ridiculously excited for this movie.
In an undisclosed future date, the earth has been put through countless trials and tribulations, and has become mostly uninhabitable. The humans call themselves “caretakers” as they attempt to live a normal life and survive. However, unbeknownst to the general public, the earth will soon become entirely impossible to live on. Because of this, a secret NASA mission takes place to explore a worm hole near Saturn for potential habitable environments.
Visually speaking, this movie is a knock-out. It’s a space movie at its heart, and spares no expense to show as many stunning images as it can. What separates this film from Gravity is that this movie is an existentialist drama with the visuals catering to the plot, while Gravity is an action film with the plot catering to the visuals. Not that either of these options are necessarily bad, but Interstellar is much more emotionally draining, while Gravity feels like riding an overly long rollercoaster. Interstellar was also shot on film and relies heavily on practical effects, which creates a much more immersive environment.
Despite the inclusion of several characters that were merely plot or exposition devices, the performances are very strong in this film. Matthew McConaughey gives an out-of-this-world presentation as the retired engineer-turned-farmer who must leave his family to lead the space expedition. Handled by weaker actor, many of his scenes would have really held the movie back, but instead McConaughey is a joy to watch every frame he’s onscreen. Anne Hathaway is tolerable as the daughter of the head of NASA as well as a leader on the spacecraft, however her performance as well as her character leave much to be desired. A lot of time is spent with Jessica Chastain as Murph, McConaughey’s character’s daughter. Unfortunately, her character is there mostly to deliver rushed and somewhat unnecessary plot details, so some of her more emotionally powerful scenes are lost. There are some nice cameos from John Lithgow, Casey Affleck, and Michael Caine, as well as a couple of nice surprise appearances. The strong supporting cast definitely lifts the film up a level.
Compared to some of Nolan’s other works, the story to Interstellar is pretty linear. In fact, a reason I don’t really like comparisons from this movie to 2001: A Space Odyssey is that 2001 is very surrealist while Interstellar explains just about everything. There’s generally not a lot of room for interpretation because this film explains everything that happens several times in detail. While this makes the film very easy to comprehend on a first viewing, it also likely makes subsequent viewings much less enriching. And despite being very scientifically accurate, the film’s big universal theme is that love transcends all. Which, to be honest, is horribly disappointing.
Nonetheless, Interstellar fulfilled my need for a 3-hour existentialist drama. The film’s length may prove to be a problem for some people, especially because of some pacing issues, but I really love lengthy and ambitious films. I think that’s the best word to describe Interstellar: ambitious. And personally, I’m always willing to watch an ambitious picture. 8/10.
Big Hero 6 is the most recent Disney animated film, following up Frozen and Wreck-it Ralph. What’s significant about this film is that it’s actually based off of a Marvel comic book. And it actually ends up being much better than a majority of the other Marvel movies. The story’s main character is Hiro Hamada, an engineering child prodigy who forms a bond with a large robot named Baymax - Hiro’s last connection to his deceased older brother.
There’s a lot of great visual ideas presented in this film. The animation is up to par with what you would expect from a Disney animated movie, but honing in on the superhero genre allows for some exciting concepts to be explored. While most of the action taking place on screen is entirely unbelievable, it’s clear that the film is aware of this fact and is choosing to make an inspiring kids film rather than involve too much logic.
Unfortunately, it very much feels like the visuals and animation took precedence here. The story is very clichéd and melodramatic. Following a formula, you’re able to predict everything that happens in the film a good 20 minutes before it actually happens. Not to mention that there are barely any characters introduced in the film. When you have a big reveal over who the villain in the story is, it’s generally not a great idea to only have two possible options and dismiss one of them partway into the second act.
Thankfully, Big Hero 6 has a great sense of humor. Baymax is a very charismatic robot and there’s a lot of enjoyment in watching it interact with it’s environment. The supporting characters are individually pretty one-note, but work well together. Unlike other animated kids films, you never really get sick of one character or particular joke. The humor is for all ages, and the film explores some themes that often go ignored in a kids movie.
I haven’t seen a newly-released kids movie I’ve liked as much as this one since Cloudy With a Chance of Meatballs 2. The excuse that a movie is ‘made for kids’ is an often-used one to avoid putting in actual effort. And for as many problems as I had for this film, there’s a strong heart to it, and it surpasses the ‘appeasing your kids’ level of entertainment. 7/10.
The directorial debut of Dan Gilroy, Nightcrawler is the most recent vehicle for Jake Gyllenhaal. Written by Gilroy, the story takes us into the underground L.A. crime scene. Gyllenhaal plays Lou Bloom, a man desperate for work, who discovers nightcrawlers - freelance camera crews that film serious crimes and accidents. Bloom takes a liking to the industry and attempts to break into it.
Gyllenhaal’s performance is uncomfortable in the best way possible. You know from the moment he appears on screen that there’s something slightly off about him, but the film makes the brilliant decision to create some likeability with Lou Bloom, until it’s slowly revealed what a manipulative sociopath that he actually is. Gyllenhaal lost twenty pounds for this role in attempt to seem like a ‘hungry coyote’. His character is unnerving but his performance is amazing. Rene Russo, Gilroy’s wife, gives a fantastic performance as Nina, a local TV news producer. Bill Paxton is great but doesn’t have much screen time or opportunity to develop his character. And Riz Ahmed gives a wonderfully subtle performance as Bloom’s sidekick.
The film is photographed by Robert Elswit - Paul Thomas Anderson’s resident cinematographer. With most of the film taking place at night, light is used in the film sparingly, with haunting results. The juxtaposition between the dark and beautiful images of L.A. and the horrific police scenes creates a wonderfully uneasy environment. As an audience member, you’re so engrossed in the mayhem of the night that it’s actually the most shocking when there’s a quiet daytime scene.
Nightcrawler has some wonderful social commentary in its script, but can sometimes get too self-indulgent when making its points. The second act felt repetitive, with the same pattern of scenes happening over and over. It felt like the filmmakers had found some concepts that were shocking and daring, but they didn’t quite fill up a full movie, so they kept hitting the themes over and over. Then the third act runs entirely too long, trying to introduce too many ideas with not enough time.
That said, the film is wildly entertaining all the way through. It’s a great character study with some good social commentary. It does some pretty extraordinary things with its small $8 million budget. It’s unsettling yet enjoyable, and I would highly recommend it. 8/10.
